united states department of agriculture forest service april ......united states department of...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

April 2017

Chewuch River Restoration River Miles 15.5-20

Environmental Assessment

Methow Valley Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Okanogan County, Washington

Photo of the Chewuch River by Barbara Jackson, Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service

For More Information Contact:

Gene Shull Zone Fisheries Biologist

Methow Valley District Ranger 24 West Chewuch Road

Winthrop, WA 98862 Phone: 509-996-4013

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status,

religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint

of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,

DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Contents

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Project Location .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Area Description ................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Consultation and Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 9 1.7 Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Issues Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2 Alternative Description .......................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................ 12 2.1.1 Alternative Formulation ............................................................................................................ 12 2.1.2 No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) ...................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Proposed Action (Alternative 2) ............................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring Features .............................................................. 20 2.1.5 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 3 Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 26 3.1 Botany ............................................................................................................................................. 26

3.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 26 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 31 3.1.3 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 32 3.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 34 3.1.5 Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures .................................................................................... 34 3.1.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 35

3.2 Invasives ......................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 35 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 36 3.2.3 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.4 Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures .................................................................................... 37 3.2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 37

3.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................ 37 3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 37 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 48 3.3.3 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 51 3.3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 52 3.3.5 Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures .................................................................................... 53 3.3.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 55

3.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers (Recreation and Scenery) ..................................................................... 56 3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 56 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 64 3.4.3 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 66 3.4.4 Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures .................................................................................... 68 3.4.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 71

3.5 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................... 72 3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 72 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 76 3.5.3 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 78 3.5.4 Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures .................................................................................... 79 3.5.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 80

3.6 Soil Resources ................................................................................................................................ 80 3.7 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 82

3.7.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................ 82 3.8. Other Environmental Consequences and Required Disclosures .............................................. 83

3.8.1 Conflicts with other Plans, Policies, or Other Jurisdictions ...................................................... 83 3.8.2 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 83 3.8.3 Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights .......................................................................... 83 3.8.4 Wetlands and Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 83 3.8.5 Unique Characteristics of the Area ........................................................................................... 83 3.8.6 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 83 3.8.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ....................................................... 84 3.8.8 Agencies, Tribes, and other Entities Consulted ........................................................................ 84

Appendix A: References ...................................................................................................................... 85

Chewuch River Restoration R.M. 15.5 – 20 1

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction The Methow Valley Ranger District (Forest Service [FS]), in partnership with The Confederated Tribes

and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), propose

to re-establish, enhance and improve the diversity of aquatic habitat for Endangered Species Act (ESA)

listed fish in the River Mile (R.M.) 15.5 - 20 reach of the Chewuch River. These actions would take place

on the Methow Valley Ranger District of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in Okanogan County

in north central Washington State starting in the summer of 2017. The Chewuch River flows into the

Methow River, a tributary of the Columbia River. Bonneville Power Administration is considering

whether to fund construction as part of the Mid-Columbia Restoration Program.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations,

which require federal agencies to assess the impacts that their actions may have on the environment. The

Forest Service is the lead agency and BPA is a cooperating agency in the development of this

Environmental Assessment (EA).

This EA was prepared to determine if the Proposed Action would significantly affect the quality of the

human environment and thereby require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Preparing this EA fulfills agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA). Details of the proposed action are in Chapter 2 beginning on page 12.

1.2 Proposed Project Location As shown in Figure 1, Project and Vicinity Map, the project is north of Winthrop, Washington at Chewuch

R.M. 15.5 - 20. It includes construction of features at approximately 29 treatment sites on National Forest

System. Up to 7 ½ acres would be potentially disturbed, depending on the final decision and final

road/access trail locations.

The proposed action is not within an Inventoried Roadless Area, Wilderness, or other congressionally

designated area. The area is within an eligible river segment for potential scenic classification under the

Wild and Scenic River Act.

1.3 Project Area Description

The Chewuch River historically produced large numbers of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout and so is a

key watershed for the delisting of the upper Columbia listed species. However, it has been slow to

recover from the removal of wood in the early half of the 1900’s and the construction and removal of

dams in the Columbia River system. Many of the forested stands within the project area provide low

rates of natural wood recruitment due to low tree densities with the presence of few snags. In addition,

channel and streambank alterations have reduced the ability of stream channels to meander and

effectively retain wood. Recreation and road development have also reduced the potential for new wood

to fall into the river. As a result of these and other factors, there has been a decrease in the amount of

pool habitat compared to natural stream conditions (Shull and Butler 2014).


Figure 1 Project & Vicinity Map


Processes affecting large wood availability, recruitment, and retention have been altered and are unlikely

to recover on their own. Natural restoration of the underlying processes would take many decades or

centuries (e.g. growth of large trees and more natural wood recruitment rates), and in some cases, such as

with bank armoring associated with a roadway, may never be fully recovered.

Large wood and pools in rivers provide important habitat to many aquatic species both in the main river

channel and in side channels, or alcoves. Large wood provides shelter, hydraulic refuge, and forms pools

with slow water that are important for rearing salmon in the first year of life. Large wood increases food

production by increasing invertebrate production. Wood also contributes to the creation of vegetated

islands that provide important nutrient inputs for many aquatic species. Off-channel habitat is important for

juvenile rearing as refugia from high stream temperatures, predators, and high flows during spring runoff.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is all suitable habitat for salmon

that currently is, or historically was, necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.

Chinook salmon habitat within the project area of the Chewuch River is currently functioning at risk.

The lack of habitat diversity in the Chewuch River limits fish productivity for Endangered Species Act

(ESA) listed fish in the Methow sub-basin (USDA-FS 1994a), (UCSRB 2007), (USDA-FS 2010).

The proposed action could affect the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” of the Chewuch River,

identified in the Okanogan Forest Plan as scenic, wildlife, fish, and recreation.

Most of the large woody debris/trees would be hauled in from other areas but a few would be taken on

site and pulled/pushed over into the river. A few trees would be cut along access routes to the river.

Trees and other material brought in would be stored at an existing gravel pit on the east side of the river.

Above the floodplain, mixed conifer plant communities occur; Ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-

fir trees are the primary overstory species. Dogbane is an interesting understory forb occurring in large

patches. This plant was used by the Native Americans to make rope and nets. Other understory species

noted were Kinnikinnick, Oregon grape, Spirea, and serviceberry. Pinegrass is the most common grass.

On the floodplain area, mesic and riparian vegetation predominates, with an overstory of Engelmann

spruce, occasional western red cedar, and close to the riverbank, alder and cottonwood. Understory

shrubs include red osier dogwood, snowberry, and various willows, especially on the riverbank. A few

thimbleberry are present. Horsetails occur in moist areas.

All map boundaries and acreage figures are approximations based on best available information at the

time, and actual implementation may differ slightly to better reflect on the ground conditions or methods

that would cause less environmental impacts.

1.4 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is to re-establish, enhance, and improve the diversity of fish habitat for

threatened and endangered anadromous fish species including Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout

in the R.M. 15.5 - 20 reach of the Chewuch River. Lack of habitat diversity in the Chewuch River is

limiting fish productivity for anadromous fish listed under the Endangered Species Act.

BPA needs to decide whether to provide funding to the Yakama Nation to construct, re-establish, enhance,

and improve fish structures in the Chewuch River.


There is a need to restore habitat diversity by increasing large wood quantities, pool frequency and quality,

and re-establishing side- and off-channel habitat to improve fish habitat for ESA-listed species.

For BPA, the alternatives should meet the following purposes:

Support efforts to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife for effects of the Federal

Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) in the mainstem Columbia River and its tributaries

pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980

(Northwest Power Act) (16 USC 839(h)(10)(A)).

Assist in carrying out commitments that are contained in the 2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords

Memorandum of Agreement with the Yakama Nation, and others.

Implement BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS and Record of Decision (ROD)

policy direction, which calls for protecting weak stocks, like the Upper Columbia steelhead and

spring Chinook, while sustaining overall populations of fish for their economic and cultural value.

Project objectives are to:

1. Increase Large Wood Complexity

The need for large wood is established by the Record of Decision for the Okanogan National Forest

Plan (USDA-FS 1989b) and the Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH 1995) and are detailed in

Chewuch River Large Wood, Pool, and Off-channel Habitat (Shull and Butler 2014). Quantities of

large wood in R.M. 15.5 - 20 of the Chewuch are below the desired amount. There is a need to add

enough large wood, in key locations, to improve the health of the channel structure and support future

natural wood recruitment.

A purpose of this project is to increase the frequency and size of large wood, and the frequency of log

jams in the R.M. 15.5 – 20 reach of the Chewuch River to start moving the reach toward the desired

condition.

2. Enhance Pool Habitat

The Okanogan National Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1989b) describes a desired pool frequency of about 15

per mile for complex pools more than three feet deep. Pool density in the Chewuch River is lower,

between 6 - 9 pools per mile, and most of the existing pools lack cover, such as large wood or root

wads, which are important for protecting juvenile and adult fish from predators and other hazards.

A purpose of this project is to enhance resting and holding habitat for salmon and steelhead; moving

this reach of the Chewuch River toward the desired condition by increasing pool frequency, and

improving pool quality, and increasing the percent of the area with pools.

3. Increase the quantity and quality of off-channel rearing habitat

Side channel habitat in R.M. 15.5 – 20 are present, but lack the structure, stability, and cover associated

with ideal over-wintering habitats. Many areas are losing, or lack, river connectivity. Some side

channels are filling in with fine sediment and lacking complex cover for protecting juvenile fish.

To move the R.M. 15.5 – 20 channel toward the desired condition of providing high quality summer

and overwintering habitat for juvenile salmonids, a purpose of this project is to increase the frequency

and quality of off-channel areas in this reach of the Chewuch River.


1.5 Regulatory Framework

The Okanogan Forest Plan (Forest Plan) provides direction, standards, and guidelines for the management

of the Chewuch River Restoration Project area (USDA-FS 1989b). Currently, the Chewuch River is the

boundary between two different land management areas. To the west, the Record of Decision and

Environmental Impact Statement for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA-Forest Service and USDI-

Bureau of Land Management, 1994) amended the Forest Plan in 1994. To the east, PACFISH amended

the Forest Plan in 1995.

The proposed action, which includes the design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring measures described in

Chapter 2, is designed to be consistent with standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan, as amended.

The following regulatory framework discussion is separated into three different management plans and

they are the Forest Plan, the Northwest Forest Plan, and PACFISH. A fourth guidance document is the

Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Okanogan Forest Plan

The Forest Plan’s desired condition for water bodies like the Chewuch River is habitat that supports fish

rearing, spawning, and migration to be in an improved state. Habitat management objectives that apply to

this project are to maintain and improve fish habitat capability, and integrate fish and riparian habitat

management into other multiple use activities. Pertinent goals of the proposed activity are for fish habitat

to be managed to maintain or enhance its biological, chemical, and physical qualities. The structural and

functional properties of aquatic systems would be managed to promote bank and channel stability and

riparian areas would be managed to provide a continuing supply of large wood for fish habitat.

Appendix G of the Forest Plan discusses Wild and Scenic River management, beginning on page G-2.

The determination of potential classification of eligible river segments for Wild and Scenic river

classification is based on the existing conditions at the time of the assessment (1989). Under the Scenic

category, it states “Those rivers or segments of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or

watershed still largely primitive and shorelines undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” (Refer to

Appendix G for the full text).

The Okanogan Forest Plan identifies management indicator species for mature and old growth forest

habitat, dead and defective tree habitat, deciduous and riparian habitat, and winter range habitat. Details

on habitat use, ecology, and amount of each habitat on the Forest for these species are in the Wildlife

Management Indicator Species Report (USDA, Forest Service 2011). The Forest-wide viability

determination for each species is included in project files.

The Forest Plan contains a number of Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines that pertain to fisheries,

including fish habitat rehabilitation (page 4-31) and river segments designated or candidate for Wild and

Scenic designation (page 4-39). The project occurs in Riparian Reserve and open land designated as Matrix

on the west side of the river and roaded natural recreation and scenic viewing on the east side of the river.

Specific applicable Standards and Guidelines (S&G) considered for plan conformance are listed below

(Figure 2).


Figure 2: Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines

3-1 Maintain or enhance biological, chemical, and physical qualities of Forest fish habitats

3-2 Rehabilitate fish habitats where past management activities have adversely affected their ability

to support fish populations.

3-3

Sediment in fishery streams shall be maintained at levels low enough to support good

reproductive success of fish populations as well as adequate instream food production by

indigenous aquatic communities to support those populations.

3-4 Manage streams for high quality pool habitat consistent with the potential for the stream to

provide it thorough natural or artificial means.

3-5 Provide an average of at least 20 pieces of large wood per 1,000 lineal feet of stream channel on

fish bearing streams to provide for aquatic needs.

6-8 Manage disturbing activities so they occur outside of critical habitat periods to protect wildlife.

6-10 Active raptor nest sites shall be protected through the nesting seasons (until young are fledged).

6-17 Threatened and endangered species shall be managed according to recovery plans.

6-18 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be initiated when threatened or

endangered species may be affected by resource proposals.

6-19 Sensitive plants and animals should be protected.

7-11 Manage to perpetuate native plant species used for food, medicine, and religious purposes by

Native American Tribes consistent with the goals of the management area.

9-3

The potential scenic classification attributes within a one-fourth mile wide corridor on each side

of the following eligible river segments {Chewuch} shall be protected pending Congressional

action on river designation.

12-1 Control noxious weeds to the extent practical.

12-2 New infestations of noxious weeds should be the first priority for eradication.

12-3 Emphasis on noxious weed control shall be the prevention of infestations, especially into

unroaded areas and wilderness.

Standards and Guideline for Management Area 5

MA5-

8A

The visual quality objective is retention (the proposed action would occur within the foreground

of the Chewuch River. It is also within the foreground of the East and West Chewuch Roads

(FSR 5100000 and 5010000) and several developed or dispersed recreation facilities and sites.)

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)

The Northwest Forest Plan amended the Okanogan Forest Plan in 1994. This plan includes an Aquatic

Conservation Strategy (ACS) with four components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed

Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. In addition, the ACS includes nine objectives to direct management

at the watershed scale that focuses on maintaining and/or improving conditions and processes associated

with streams and adjacent riparian areas. The lower Chewuch River watershed is a designated Key

Watershed and a priority for habitat restoration. Standards and Guidelines in the NWFP for Riparian

Reserves of particular relevance to this habitat restoration project in a Key Watershed include (Figure 3):

Figure 3: Standards and Guidelines

Standards and Guidelines

WR-1

Design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that promotes long-term

ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserves the genetic integrity of native species, and

attains ACS objectives.

FW-1 Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement activities in a

manner that contributes to attainment of the ACS objectives.


This document and analysis tier to the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and

Guidelines. The 2005 Survey and Manage species list was used for this analysis (see Appendix B of the

Botany Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation in project files).

PACFISH

PACFISH amended the Okanogan Forest Plan in 1995. PACFISH includes five components directing

management of riparian areas: Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), Riparian Goals, Riparian

Management Objectives (RMOs), Key Watersheds, and Watershed Analysis. The RMOs include eight

objectives to guide management at the watershed scale that focus on maintaining and/or improving

conditions and processes associated with streams and adjacent riparian areas. The lower Chewuch River

watershed is a designated Key Watershed and is a priority for habitat restoration. The two applicable

RMOs include “pool frequency” and “large woody debris” (Figure 4). The RMOs suggest a pool

frequency should be around 23 pools/mile and suggest large wood levels should be more than 20

pieces/mile that are greater than 12” in diameter and 35 foot long.

Figure 4: Riparian Management Objectives

Riparian Management Objective

WR-1 Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement actions in a

manner that contributes to attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives.

FW-1 Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement actions in a

manner that contributes to attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

Invasive Plant Program Guidance

The Record of Decision for the Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final EIS (USDA-FS November

2005) [2005 PNW ROD] provides direction for the management of invasive species. This project is

intended to comply with the Okanogan National Forest Weed Management and Prevention Strategy and

Best Management Practices (USDA-FS 2002), the Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (USDA-FS

2001) supporting the February 3, 1999 Executive Order on Invasive Species and the National Strategy and

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management (USDA-FS October 2004).

Federal, State, and Local Laws and Guidance

The Endangered Species Act: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that

any action authorized by a federal agency shall not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a

threatened or endangered (T&E) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat to

such species that is determined to be critical.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the primary law governing marine

fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. First passed in 1976, the Act fosters biological and

economic sustainability of our nation’s marine fisheries out to 200 nautical miles from shore.

The Clean Water Act (CWA), as represented collectively by the Water Quality Act of 1987, the Clean

Water Act of 1977, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The CWA

characterizes water pollution from forestland use activities as “non-point source pollution”, and describes

the use of best management practices (BMPs) as the most effective means of preventing and controlling

non-point source pollution. It also establishes state roles in water resource classification, development of

water quality standards, and identification of waters that are unlikely to comply with these standards.


The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in

1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 USC 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural,

and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations.

The Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1989) determined the Chewuch

River, from the Thirtymile Trailhead to the Forest Boundary, is an eligible river segment for potential

Scenic River designation. Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs federal agencies to protect

the free-flowing condition and other values of designated rivers.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 reorganized, expanded, and otherwise amended the Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of

renewable resources on National Forest System lands. This Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to

assess forestlands, develop a management program based on multiple uses, sustained yield principles, and

implements a resource management plan for each unit on the National Forest System.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds.

Executive Order 13186, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001) Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect

Migratory Birds, along with the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds (2008) require proposed

federal actions to be evaluated for effects on migratory birds.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470), as amended, is the foremost

legislation that governs the means to identify, administrate, and preserve objects and landscapes significant

to cultural and social heritage for the enrichment of future generations. Implementing regulations that

clarify and expand upon the NHPA include 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36 CFR 63

(Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), and 36 CFR 296 (Protection of

Archaeological Resources). The Pacific Northwest Region (R6) of the Forest Service, the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), signed a

programmatic agreement (PA) regarding the management of cultural resources on National Forest System

lands in 1997. The 1997 PA outlines specific procedures for the identification, evaluation, and protection of

cultural resources during activities or projects conducted on National Forest System lands. It also

establishes the process that the SHPO utilizes to review Forest Service undertakings for NHPA compliance.

Other Guidance or Recommendations

Watershed Analysis

The Chewuch Watershed Analysis (1994) describes habitat conditions below Lake Creek as having a

“lack of habitat complexity due to low amounts of large wood and loss of side-channel processes due to

debris cleanouts in the river and reduction in large streamside recruitment trees.” The analysis cited

historic wood cleanouts as “possibly the most damaging affect that humans have had on the aquatic and

riparian ecosystem structure and function of the Chewuch River below Lake Creek”. This activity

resulted in river channel straightening, increased bank erosion, lack of pools and deep pools, channel

down cutting, and over-simplified habitat that does not provide desirable fish habitat.

Aquatic habitat restoration, which includes large wood placement, was identified as a need to increase the

accumulation of wood in the lower Chewuch River, below Lake Creek.

It also included recommendations to perform surveys for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant

species at least one year in advance of disturbance, and to maintain a database of any sites found.


Forest Service Handbook (FSH) and Manual Direction (FSM)

FSH 1909.12, 82.5 gives direction for management of rivers, such as the Chewuch that have been

determined potentially eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation. It states that the Responsible

Official can authorize site-specific projects on National Forest System land within eligible river corridors

when the project is consistent with the following:

1. The free-flowing character of the river is not modified by the construction or development of

stream impoundments, diversions, or other water resources projects;

2. Outstandingly remarkable values of the identified river area are protected; and

3. Construction of structures to protect and enhance fish habitat should harmonize with the area’s

largely undeveloped character and fully protect identified river values.

FSM 2670 directs the Forest Service to manage habitats for all existing and desired native plants, fish,

and wildlife species in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species. To conduct activities

and programs “to assist in the identification and recovery of threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant

and animal species”. To avoid actions “which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered”.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

The project would meet BPA’s objectives mandated under several federal laws. BPA is a federal power

marketing agency that is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. BPA’s operations are governed by

several statutes, such as the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980

(Northwest Power Act) (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.). Among other things, the Northwest Power Act directs

BPA to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the

Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). To assist in accomplishing this, the Act requires BPA to

fund fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement actions consistent with the Northwest

Power and Conservation Council’s (NPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program. Under this program, the NPCC

makes recommendations to BPA concerning which fish and wildlife projects to fund. The NPCC

determined that this project was consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program, and BPA would use the

analysis in this EA to decide whether to fund the project.

The project would also assist in carrying out commitments related to the 2008 Columbia Basin Fish

Accords Memorandum of Agreement with the Yakama Nations and others.

Additionally, this project would help BPA meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) by fulfilling commitments to implement Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 35,

which calls for identifying tributary habitat restoration projects in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion, as

amended by a Supplemental Biological Opinion in 2010 and 2014 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Fisheries 2008, 2010, 2014).

1.6 Consultation and Public Involvement This project has been on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA)

since October 2016. On September 2, 2016, government-to-government consultation letters were sent to

the Yakama Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (Colville Tribe) per

Executive Order 13175. The only response letter was from the Colville Tribe agreeing with the Area of

Potential Effect (APE) that had been selected for Cultural Resource surveys.

On September 7, 2016, the Okanogan County Commissioners were sent a letter seeking input on the

project. No project specific concerns were received from the Commissioners.


Public scoping began on September 9, 2016. The letter was sent to adjacent landowners to the project and

individuals who had permits at the Brevicomis Recreation Residence site. No comments were received.

The interdisciplinary team discussed, reviewed, and modified the proposal presented by the Yakama

Nation to better fit existing guidance documents.

1.7 Issues Issues for analysis were identified during interdisciplinary team discussions. Those issues and the

indicators for measuring effects are listed below and discussed in the appropriate resource section under

Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences beginning on page 26 of this document.

1. The constructed features could degrade the scenic outstandingly remarkable value by decreasing

visual quality as seen from the river and the East and West Chewuch Roads, and increasing

development along the river.

Indicators: Scenic Quality.

2. The constructed features could affect the recreation outstandingly remarkable value by changing

the landscape character as seen from developed or dispersed campgrounds.

Indicators: Overall Recreation Experience.

3. Access and site work by equipment, such as excavators, used to enhance pools, install large wood

or complete side- or off-channel work might damage or remove Sanicula populations, a Region 6

Sensitive Plant Species.

Proposed access to site B is adjacent to a Sanicula population. A population is known to have

previously occurred along the planned route to sites O and P, but this population was not

located during field surveys.

Indicators: Acres of Habitat, Number of Populations, Number of Individuals.

4. Constructed features may pose a safety hazard to boaters who could be caught on or pulled under

the structures.

Indicators: Recreation Safety.

5. Disturbance from access and construction during critical periods, including nesting season, may

affect Nesting Birds or federally listed wildlife species.

Indicators: Disturbance during critical periods; Disturbance during nesting season; Disturbance

to federally listed species.

6. Removal of large diameter cedar, cottonwood, and aspen trees during access and construction

could affect unique riparian habitat.

Indicators: Loss of large diameter cottonwood, cedar, and ponderosa pine trees.

7. Site access and construction would include soil disturbance and may use equipment and materials

contaminated with weed seed.

Indicators: Establishment of new infestations.


8. Existing populations of invasive plants in the project area could be spread by project activities

such as site access, construction, and reclamation.

Indicators: Spread of existing infestations.

Issues Considered but Dismissed

1. Constructed features, such as logjams, could break loose and move downstream, impacting private

property.

o Such occurrences are unlikely and not reasonably foreseeable. As described in the Chewuch

RM 15.5 - 17 Fish Habitat Conceptual Design Report (Inter-Fluve, May 2014) and the River

Mile 17 - 20 Conceptual Design Report (Inter-Flueve, March 2016), the features are designed

to remain stable through the 100-year flood event.


Chapter 2 Alternative Description

Chapter 2 describes in detail the alternatives analyzed for the Chewuch River Restoration R.M. 15.5 – 20

Project. Where there are no unresolved conflicts concerning the alternative uses of available resources

(NEPA, section 102(22)(E)), the EA need only analyze the proposed action and proceed without

consideration of additional alternatives (36 CFR220.7 (b)(2)(i)). Chapter 2 provides readers and the

deciding official with a summary of the entire project, displaying the alternative design criteria, mitigation,

monitoring requirements, and a comparison of the effects of the alternatives.

2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1.1 Alternative Formulation

Because no unresolved conflicts emerged during scoping, an action alternative to the Proposed Action was

not developed. This EA addresses one action alternative, the Proposed Action, including design criteria and

required mitigation/monitoring to prevent unacceptable resource damage and ensure Forest Plan, as

amended, compliance. No other action alternatives were considered for detailed analysis.

2.1.2 No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No Action alternative provides a baseline to compare against for the analysis of environmental effects.

The No Action Alternative would not restore wood or stream side channels in the 15.5 – 20 R.M. reach nor

any other river restoration activities. The wood needed for increasing large wood complexity would occur

through natural processes. Recovery of pool habitat and restoring the quantity and quality of off-channel

rearing habitat in the river would occur through natural processes.

Although recent wildfires in the upper watershed have created a potential source of in-stream wood, the

processes affecting large wood recruitment and retention have all been altered over time and are unlikely to

fully recover on their own. For example, an ample supply of large wood exists upstream from past fires;

however, riparian roads, channel cleaning, riparian harvest, bank armoring, etc. have altered the stream

banks and channelized the flow reducing the ability of the stream to retain large wood that becomes

available. Furthermore, natural restoration of the underlying processes would take many decades or

centuries (e.g. growth of large trees and more natural wood recruitment rates), and in some cases, such as

with bank armoring associated with a roadway, may never be fully recovered (Shull and Butler 2014).

2.1.3 Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

The Forest Service and the Yakama Nation, funded by BPA, are currently proposing restoration actions on

the Chewuch River from R.M. 15.5 to 20.0. This is the fourth in a series of Chewuch River restoration

projects. Additional project proposals may occur in future years, but information about site locations or

designs is not available. The proposed project has been designed to enhance fish habitat and to improve fish

habitat diversity by:

Increasing habitat complexity by the introduction of large wood,

Increasing pool habitat, and

Restoring historical off-channel habitat.

The proposed action is based on projects described in the Chewuch River Mile 15.5 - 17 Fish Habitat

Conceptual Design Report (Inter-Fluve May 2014) and the River Mile 17 - 20 Conceptual Design Report

(Inter-Flueve March 2016) and includes the following below activities. Locations for each of the sites and

associated access routes is shown on Figure 1, page 2, Project & Vicinity Map, and Figures 5, 6, and 7

Conceptual Design Drawings, pages 15, 16, and 17.


GENERAL TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS

Field survey and analysis have determined the following project types are feasible and appropriate within

the project reach. They include the following:

Bank Jams: Bank margin large wood would be employed where natural wood deposition naturally occurs –

such as the outside of meander bends – to enhance juvenile rearing and adult holding habitat. Because this

treatment simulates lateral logjams, the density of the wood in this treatment is high, encompassing 40 -70

feet of bank, with roughly 35 – 60 large woody debris (LWD) pieces consisting of both root wad and

straight pieces. A bank buried structure such as this will usually extend into the river 15-20 feet. The

diversity of LWD size class will range from 17 – 25” in diameter at breast height. Bank margin large wood

treatment zones can be viewed in the drawing set in project files.

Side Channel Reconnection: There is an old side channel near R.M. 15.5 that is currently backwatered by

the Chewuch River. It was once an active flow through side channel with an inlet near R.M. 16.3. Over

time, the side channel was abandoned as local channel elevations lowered. The inlet to the side channel

would be opened up to provide perennial flow to the side channel that is currently disconnected from the

river. Site work includes creating a new inlet to the side channel, and installing log structures that would

improve direct flow to the side channel. The structure would require a total of 80 LWD pieces, which

include straight pieces for ballasting. The total length of channel excavation is 600 feet with an estimated

5,700 cubic yards of material to be removed off site.

Bar-Apex Jams: Bar-apex large wood jam treatments are centered at the head of gravel bars or braided

channel islands. They also enhance existing wood deposit zones by increasing the mass and vertical height

of the large wood deposit, which can help trap and retain additional wood. These structures create pools at

the head of the structure, encourage side channel inlet flow conditions, and can encourage/enhance meander

migration. If used in larger numbers, they can create a high degree of channel complexity. Bar-apex

structures are typically made up of 15 to 25 LWD pieces. This includes both root wad and straight sticks

for ballasting. Size of the structure is more dependent on current conditions that are encountered at the time

of construction. Bar-apex large wood locations can be viewed in the drawing set in project files.

Whole Tree Placements: Whole tree cover wood placements involves pushing/pulling over existing large

conifer trees, laying them over the bank edge relatively intact, and ballasting them with piles in order to

provide near-bank cover habitat. Ideally, trees used for this treatment would be far enough from the river to

insure they could not naturally enter the river through natural migration processes. The size and location of

the trees would be determined by the USFS.

Treatment sites where these treatments could be used are located in the drawing set and identified as WP1,

2, or 3. These treatment sites are focused in areas with existing pool areas and little cover and/or areas

where tree placement could rapidly scour and create new complex habitat.

Pool Cover Habitat Jams: Wood would be placed in two existing pool features to add hiding cover and to

create more complex pool habitat. This treatment involves ballasting wood in the banks and extending into

existing pools that will provide immediate cover habitat in slow water areas.

Side Channel Pool and Cover Habitat Enhancement: There are existing side channel habitats with minimal

pool depth that could be enhanced using heavy equipment to excavate pool bedform features and then

enhanced with large wood cover. This type of project could be completed in a segment of channel with

difficult access using an excavator in combination with helicopter large wood delivery.

Specific project sites are discussed below, and are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7 on pages 15, 16, and 17.


SITE A – Bank Jam

Site A is a right bank surface bar log jam to supplement an existing wood deposit. Imported wood would be

placed and ballasted using vibratory driven piles. The jam would be constructed to take advantage of and

use an existing natural large spruce tree to enhance existing processes and provide both low and high flow

rearing habitat.

SITE WP2 – Whole Tree Placement

The project site is a left bank large wood cover. Standing trees along the river would be pushed/pulled over to

form cover in existing pool habitat. Two to four trees would be pulled/pushed over and placed in the channel.

The trees would not be ballasted by vertical piles and would adjust along the bank in subsequent high flows.

SITE D – Apex Jam

Site D is an apex jam at a location naturally suited to wood deposition. The jams is intended to provide a

large surface area to collect incoming natural large wood and increase rearing habitat at both low and high

flows. Vertical piles would be used to ballast the wood in place. Bank height is approximately eight feet.

Total bank length is approximately 40 feet.

SITE E – Bank Jam

Site E is a right bank buried log jam extending out into the river 25 – 30 feet. The jam is ballasted in place

through burial and vertical piles placed within the matrix of the structure. Bank height is approximately eight

feet. Total bank length is approximately 60 feet long and would enhance an existing pool with no cover.

SITE F – Apex Jam

To enhance flow into a high-flow side channel, an apex logjam would be constructed. The apex jam would

not provide low-flow habitat but instead enhance high-flow habitat within an existing high-flow channel. It

would do so by reducing local channel capacity downstream of the side channel inlet, causing lower flows

to run into the side channel than would occur without the jam.

SITE G – Pool Cover Habitat Jam

Site G is a small habitat cover log jam within a backwater side channel along the right bank. The jam is

intended to provide rearing cover habitat within a backwater during high flows. Some wood would be

extended down over an existing pool. The project would be ballasted with vertical piles. Bank height is

approximately eight feet. Total bank length is approximately 40 feet long and would enhance an existing

pool with no cover. As part of reclamation of the trail down the 8’ bank to the river, a set of hardened stairs

would be constructed.

SITE H – Apex Jam

Site H is an apex jam within an area that could accumulate natural wood. Imported wood would be placed

and ballasted using vibratory driven piles. The jam would be designed to accumulate native large wood and

accelerate left bank migration into an old channel complex and riparian area. As left bank migration occurs,

mature spruce trees would be incorporated into the channel further improving ecologic and fish habitat

complexity.

SITE I

The project site is a left bank buried and pile ballasted log jam to provide cover habitat over an existing pool. Total

bank distance is 40-60 feet long in a gap between large trees adjacent to the pool and extending into the river 30

feet. The structure would be ballasted in place through burial and vertical piles placed within the wood matrix.

Additionally, standing trees along the river would be pushed/pulled over to form cover in existing pool habitat.


Figure 5: Conceptual Design Drawing.


Figure 6: Conceptual Design Drawing.


Figure 7: Conceptual Design Drawing


SITE I Access Route Tree Removal

Up to 16 live spruce trees would be either pushed/pulled over or cut down to place in the river for

constructing the large wood debris structure at Site I. Tree sizes range from 8” to 30” in diameter at breast

height. The Forest Service would determine the size and location of trees.

SITE WP3 – Whole Tree Placement

The project site is a left bank large wood cover. Standing trees along the river would be pushed/pulled over

to form cover in existing pool habitat. Two trees would be pulled/pushed over and placed in the channel. The

trees would not be ballasted by vertical piles and would adjust along the bank in subsequent high flows.

SITE J – Bank Jam

The project site is a right bank buried and pile ballasted log jam. Bank height is approximately eight feet.

Total bank length is approximately 50 feet long and would enhance an existing pool with no cover.

SITE K – Bank Jam

The project site is a left bank buried and vertical pile ballasted log jam extending into the river

approximately 20 feet. The wood complex would be extended back into an adjacent higher terrace. The left

bank/bar is 2-3 feet high. Total jam height would be approximately 8 feet (or near 1.5 times the bankfull

stage height). This work would enhance an existing pool at low and high flows.

SITE L – Bank Jam

Existing meander migration processes have created a scalloped pocket in the bank that would naturally

collect large wood or tend to retain an undermined tree. Currently there are no trees that would be

undermined. However, a buried and pile ballasted left bank jam would be constructed to enhance habitat. The

site would require tree removal and that material would be used in the jam construction.

SITE M – Bank Jam

The project site is a right bank buried and pile ballasted log jam. Bank height is approximately eight feet.

Total bank length is approximately 40 feet long and would enhance an existing pool with no cover.

SITE N – Bank Jam

The project site is a left bank buried and pile ballasted log jam to provide cover habitat over an existing pool.

Total bank distance is 40-60 feet long in a gap between large trees adjacent to the pool.

SITE N - Access Route Tree Removal

Up to 11 live spruce trees would be either pulled/pushed over or cut over to be place in the river for wood at

Site N. Tree sizes range from 12” to 24” in diameter at breast height.

SITE O – Bank Jam

Between R.M. 18.1 and 18.5, the Chewuch becomes braided. Two main channels exist and would be referred

to as the West and East channels. The West channel is larger and has more channel capacity than the East

channel. However, the East channel currently has more flow and is in the process of expanding capacity via

lateral bank erosion. A natural apex wood deposit splits the two channels. The West channel is dry during

low flows.

The project site is a left bank buried and pile ballasted log jam in the East channel. The jam is centered on an

existing spruce encompassing approximately 40 feet of 5-6 foot high bank length.


SITE P – Bank Jam

The project site is a left bank buried and pile ballasted log jam in the East channel. The jam would be

adjacent to an existing pool and cover approximately 40 feet along a 5-6 foot high bank length.

SITE GREEN STRIP (between site P and Q)

The project site is near the apex of an island at R.M. 18.4. Three spruce trees would be removed for use at

site Q.

SITE Q – Pool Cover Habitat Jam

The project site is a right bank buried and pile ballasted log jam in the West channel. The jam would provide

cover to an existing pool and cover approximately 40 feet of channel length. At low flow, the pool is not

connected by surface water but is connected by hyphoreic water. Currently any fish left behind in this pool

would likely be lost to predation. A jam here is intended to allow fish to hold until the following spring

runoff.

SITE R – Apex Jam

The upstream head of the island separating the East and West channels is a natural wood deposition zone.

The site currently has natural wood deposited on it but the wood does not extend down to low water

elevations. A project here would add additional imported wood to the apex emulating natural process and

thereby enhancing high- and low-flow cover habitat.

SITE S – Apex Jam

To enhance flow into a high-flow side channel, an apex logjam would be constructed. The apex jam would

not provide low-flow habitat but instead enhance high-flow habitat within an existing high-flow channel. It

would do so by reducing local channel capacity downstream of the side channel inlet, causing lower flows to

run into the side channel than would occur without the jam.

SITE T – Bank Jam

The project site is a right bank buried log jam. The jam would be adjacent to a large existing pool and cover

approximately 40 feet of channel length. The bank is over 7 feet high and sufficient to ballast the jam.

SITE U – Bank Jam

The site is a small right bank jam in an existing small cove area. The jam would be less than 30 feet long and

would be ballasted by both vertical piles and burial. The jam would provide high- and low-flow cover in an

existing pool habitat.

SITE V – Side Channel Pool and Cover Habitat Enhancement

A well connected side channel running along the west valley toe offers an opportunity to enhance side

channel rearing and cover habitat. The opportunity has two parts. The first would enhance pool habitat by

excavating pools and creating bar surfaces with the excavated alluvium. The second would fly in large wood

to provide cover habitat in the enhanced pool segments using a heavy lift helicopter.

Site W – Apex Jam

To enhance flow into a high-flow side channel on river right, an apex log jam would be constructed on an

island in the main channel. The upstream head of the island forming a braided flow split is a natural wood


deposition zone. The site currently has natural wood deposited on it. A project here would add additional

imported wood to the apex emulating natural process and thereby enhance habitat and flow into the side

channel described previously (project site RM 19.2 to 19.3).The apex jam would not provide low-flow

habitat but instead enhance high-flow habitat within an existing high-flow channel. It would also put more

flow down the side channel to help maintain the pools constructed there.

2.1.4 Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring Features

Figure 8: Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring Features

Number Design Feature Why

Necessary Efficacy

Consequences of

Not Applying

Monitoring

Required

1

Vertical members needed for

structural stability should be

varied in height. Tops

should look more natural.

To reduce

deviations to

landscape

character.

Moderately

effective at

maintaining a

natural look.

Greater impact to

scenic quality

Implementation

Monitoring

2

Use trees with limbs attached

when possible, and integrate

brush or small trees with

limbs attached into

structures.

To reduce

deviation of the

dominating form

of the structure

by adding texture

to the landscape

character.

Moderately

effective at

adding texture to

the landscape

character.

Greater impact to

scenic quality No

3 Install bumper logs on bank

and apex structures.

Reduce the risk

of boaters being

caught on or

pulled under the

structure.

Moderately–

Highly effective

at deflecting

boaters from

being caught by

the structures.

Increased risk to

boaters

Implementation

Monitoring

4

Place logs and vertical

members in a random

“messy” pattern.

Reduce impact on

scenic quality.

Moderately

effective at

reducing impact

to the scenic

quality.

Degrade scenic

value No

5

Protect dispersed campsites,

user-created trails, and

access points to the river

during construction, and

restore them after the project

is complete. Restoration

measures include the

following, as necessary; chip

or scatter slash, re-grade the

camping area or access area,

reconstruct fire rings,

vegetate site by seeding or

transplanting, maintaining

open road access, protecting

or reconstructing fences, and

reconstructing trails.

Avoid long-term

impacts to

existing dispersed

campsites.

Highly effective

at maintaining

campsite quality

post-project.

Campsites near

structures J, M, and

U could become

less desirable.

Check each site

near the end of

construction to

ensure

restoration

elements are

completed.

6

Reseed and replant all access

roads, trails, and

streambanks. Outside of

high use areas, consider

minimizing screening of

plants and marking planting

sites with steel posts.

Avoid long-term

scenic

degradation.

Highly effective

at reducing traffic

and re-

naturalizing the

area.

Long-term negative

effects on scenic

values.

Check each site

near the end of

construction to

ensure

restoration

elements are

completed.



Necessary Efficacy

Consequences of

Not Applying

Monitoring

Required

7 Implementation timing of

July 1 - 30.

Avoid

disturbance to

nesting harlequin

ducks (May 15 –

June 20).

Avoiding

construction or

other disturbance

during the main

nesting period

would be

extremely

effective at

preventing

disturbance.

Potential for adverse

impact to Region 6

Sensitive species.

No

8

Bald eagle and osprey nest

surveys would be completed

each spring until the project

is implemented.

Avoid

disturbance of

active raptor nests

during the nesting

season (May 1 –

August 15).

Annual spring

surveys to

determine if

active raptor nests

are present is the

primary method

used to avoid

disturbance from

Forest activities

(FSM 2670).


impact to Region 6

Sensitive Species

and raptor species.

Yes

9

Design restoration sites to

avoid the need to fell large

diameter cottonwood, cedar,

aspen, and ponderosa pine

trees.

Prevent/minimize

loss of unique

riparian habitat

features.

Avoiding large

diameter

cottonwood,

cedar, aspen, and

ponderosa pine

trees would be

extremely

effective at

maintaining them.


impact to migratory

birds and unique

riparian habitat.

No

10

Best Management Practices

(BMPs) would be utilized.

All access routes and

existing road templates

encountered within the

project area would be

rehabilitated and restored to

promote vegetation

recruitment, soil productivity

and hydrologic functions.

The road/access route prism

would be ripped at a

minimum and/or fully

recontoured to reduce soil

compaction, increase

infiltration capacity and

prevent unauthorized

motorized access.

To help prevent

the establishment

of new

infestations and

the spread of

existing

infestations of

invasive species.

Avoid long-term

scenic

degradation.

Good. Planting

native vegetation

in areas of soil

disturbance

would be

effective at

reducing bare soil

areas and helping

to prevent the

establishment of

new invasive

plants and

effective at

avoiding scenic

degradation.

Higher potential for

disturbed soils areas

to be infested with

invasive plants and

degrading scenic

value.

Check each site

near the end of

construction to

ensure

restoration

elements are

completed.

11

Straw or mulch used for

restoration of disturbed soil

must be weed-free.

To help prevent

the establishment

of new

infestations and

the spread of

existing

infestations.

Good. The use of

weed-free

materials would

prevent the

introduction of

new weed seeds

to the project

area.

Higher potential for

dirty materials to

introduce weed

seeds from outside

the project area.

Yes



Necessary Efficacy

Consequences of

Not Applying

Monitoring

Required

12

If avoidance of a cultural

resource were not possible,

mitigation would be

developed in consultation

with the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO)

and the Tribal Historic

Preservation Officers

(THPO) for the Yakama

Nation and the Confederated

Colville Tribes.

To follow 1997

Programmatic

Agreement and

protect cultural

resources.

Moderately

effective.

Newly discovered

cultural resources

may not be

protected.

No

13

All disturbed soil areas

would be annually inspected

for invasive plants.

To help prevent

establishment of

new infestations.

Early detection

and rapid

response is the

best way to

prevent new

infestations from

becoming

established.

There may not be

early detection of

new infestations

allowing them to

become established.

Yes, monitor

annually for

three years.

14

Do not fall trees within 100

feet of Sanicula marilandica

populations. In areas where

this is not possible, fall trees

away from populations.

Prevent

mechanical

damage to and

loss of

individuals and/or

degradation of

habitat.

Good

Loss of individuals

and/or occupied

habitat.

Yes, Forest

Service Botanist

15

All equipment shall be

washed immediately prior to

entering National Forest

System lands and Sensitive

plant sites.

Prevent spread of

invasive plant

species within

sensitive plant

populations and

to prevent the

establishment of

new infestations

of invasive

plants.

Good

Loss of habitat,

potential loss of

individual sensitive

plants. Higher

potential for dirty

equipment to

introduce weed

seeds from outside

the project area.

Equipment

Inspection

16

Design access routes to

avoid Sanicula marilandica

populations or individuals.

Move route to site B slightly

north around a flagged

population of Sanicula

marilandica to avoid and

protect it.

Limit the loss of

individuals and

degradation of

habitat. Protect

the population.

Good

Loss of individuals

and/or occupied

habitat. Protect the

population or

otherwise it could

be obliterated at site

B.

A Forest

Service.

Botanist would

be present when

the access route

to Sites B, O,

and P are

finalized.

17

The Forest Service prior to

and after project

implementation would treat

existing infestations of

invasive plant species

annually.

To help prevent

the spread of

existing invasive

plants.

The annual

treatment of

know infestations

would prevent the

production of

new seeds that

could easily be

dispersed by

project activities.

There would be a

higher potential for

project activities to

move seeds or other

plant parts to

different areas.

No



Necessary Efficacy

Consequences of

Not Applying

Monitoring

Required

18

In order to comply with

applicable ESA and Clean

Water Act laws this project

would follow a suite of

design criteria described

under the Conservation

Measures for Programmatic

Biological Opinion for

Aquatic Restoration

Activities in the States of

Oregon and Washington

(ARBO II) (FWS No.:

01EOFW00-2013-F-0090 &

NMFS Tracking No.: NWP-

2013-9664).

Required per

consultation Good

Need to re-consult

on the project Yes

19

The Yakama Nation would

obtain necessary permits

from the Army Corps of

Engineers, Washington

Department of Ecology, and

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Required by law

or regulation Highly effective

Not meet law and

regulations

By permitting

agency

2.1.5 Comparison of Alternatives Figure 9: Comparison of How the Alternatives Address the Key Issues

Issue Indicator/Measure Alt 1/No Action Alt 2/Proposed Action

1. The constructed structures

could degrade the scenic

outstandingly remarkable

value by decreasing visual

quality as seen from the river

and the East and West

Chewuch Roads, and

increasing development along the river.

Scenic Quality:

Scenic integrity

objective and Visual

Quality Objective

High Scenic integrity

objective, and Retention

Visual Quality Objective met.

Overall, High Scenic integrity objective, and

Retention Visual Quality Objective met.

Scenic Quality:

Development along the river.

The shoreline is largely

undeveloped, 2

structures for a previous

project would be

noticeable and increase the developed look.

Structures “C” and “U” would moderately alter

the view along the river from campsites.

Outstanding opportunities would still dominate,

and popularity of the areas would not decrease.

Three structures, J, M, and U would cause short-

term impacts to the use of adjacent dispersed

sites, which would be closed during

construction. Site restoration mitigation

measures would return the sites to the original

condition, with no long-term impact on

popularity or use. Overall, the undeveloped character would be retained.

2. The constructed structures

could affect the recreation

outstandingly remarkable

value by changing the

landscape character as seen

from developed

campgrounds and dispersed campsites.

Recreation

Experience:

Overall changes to

recreation opportunities.

No changes in overall


No changes to most recreation activities along

the river. Outstanding recreation opportunities

would still dominate, and popularity of the area would not decrease.


Issue Indicator/Measure Alt 1/No Action Alt 2/Proposed Action

3. Access and site work by

equipment, such as

excavators, used to enhance

pools, install large wood or

complete side- or off-

channel work might damage

or remove Sanicula

populations, a Region 6

Sensitive plant Species

found at sites B, O, and P.

Acres of occupied

Sanicula Habitat; 30.6

30.6 With design feature of avoiding one

population, no loss).

Number of

individuals and

populations of Sanicula

1,948 individuals, 6

populations

1,948 individuals, 6 populations remaining with

design feature of avoiding one population.

Change in unique

habitats containing

cedar, cottonwood, and aspen.

No change

Slightly better than existing conditions where

small diameter cedar trees are being replanted if

removed and Engelmann spruce are felled in cottonwood and aspen stands.

4. Constructed structures

could pose a safety hazard to

boaters who could be caught

on or pulled under the structures.

Recreation

Experience: Changes

to Boater Safety

No increase in risk to

boaters.

All structures designed to reduce risk to boaters

and for logs to not span the river.

5. Disturbance from access

and construction during

critical periods, including

nesting season, may impact

nesting birds or federally listed wildlife species.

Disturbance during

critical periods;

Disturbance during

nesting season;

Disturbance to

Federally listed species.

No disturbance from

river restoration project.

Disturbance would occur outside of critical

nesting period for harlequin ducks. Disturbance

to Federally listed species such as grizzly bear

and gray wolf would be limited to a short duration during the middle of summer.

6. Removal of large

diameter cedar and

cottonwood (> 16”) during

access and construction

would impact unique riparian habitat.

Number of large

diameter cedar or

cottonwood trees felled.

0 0

7. Site access and

construction would include

soil disturbance and would

use equipment and materials

that may be contaminated with weed seed.

Use of clean

equipment and

materials. Yes/No

No equipment or

materials used.

Yes. Weed free equipment and materials

required.

8. Existing populations of

invasive plants in the project

area could be spread by

project activities such as site access and construction.

Amount of soil

disturbance. 0

7.5 acres of temporary disturbance; Design

criteria/mitigation to minimize the spread of invasive species.

Activity within

existing site. Yes/No

No project activity

within known sites;

recreational activities could occur within sites.

Yes. Design criteria and mitigation measures

minimize potential for spread.


Figure 10: Comparison of How the Alternative Addresses the Purpose and Need

Resource Element Resource

Indicator Measure Alt 1/No Action Alt 2/Proposed Action

Channel

Morphology/Fish Habitat

Wood Density Log Jams/mile 0.7 Increase of~6.2

Pools Pools/mile 6.7 – 9.5 ~5.8 pools/mile created

Deep, Complex Pools/mile 5.8 – 7.5 ~2.2 pools/mile created

Off-Channel

Habitat

Number of off-channel habitat

areas 4 features present

1 new off-channel habitat

feature created and 1 existing feature improved.

Maintain Water

Quality Sediment NTU

No-effect;

Properly functioning

Small temporary increase

during construction; remains same over time.

Wild & Scenic River

Outstandingly

Remarkable

Values/Biological Effect to Fisheries.

Outstandingly

remarkable

fishery

Value/ESA Fish Species.

Non-functioning, Functioning

At Risk, Properly Functioning.

Functioning at

Risk

Improve; moving toward

Properly Functioning.

Wild & Scenic River

Outstandingly

Remarkable Values for Recreation.

Outstandingly

remarkable

Recreation Value

for scenery and

visual quality objective.

Scenic integrity objective and

Visual Quality Objective

High scenic

integrity objective

and recreation

visual quality objectives met.

Overall, high scenic

integrity objective and

recreation visual quality objectives met.

Wild & Scenic River

Outstandingly

Remarkable

Values/Biological Effect to Wildlife.

Outstandingly

remarkable wildlife value.

Any direct and adverse effect

that would diminish the value for wildlife.

No disturbance

from river

restoration

project. No

change in

Outstandingly

remarkable value

for wildlife.

Direct and adverse effects

limited in time and space.

Outstandingly remarkable

value for wildlife would not be diminished.


Chapter 3 Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the potential physical and biological impacts of the proposed action and no action

alternatives for each impacted resources. Resources that were not impacted and therefore not further

analyzed including fire and fuels, range, air quality, transportation, socio-economics, and vegetation.

Environmental consequences are described in terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct

effects are those effects caused by the action, occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are

caused by the action occurring later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably

predicted. Cumulative effects are the incremental effects of the Chewuch River Restoration R.M. 15.5 – 20

Project alternatives when considered with the overall effects of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action, this

analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is

because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions on natural events that

have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

The cumulative effects analyses do not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up

all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First,

a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain.

Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century, and beyond, and trying

to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible.

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the

cumulative effects of the proposed action. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate

than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of

individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that

has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks

ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects

just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, residual effects of past human actions and

natural events are captured, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third,

public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on

individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretative

memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an

adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without

delving into the historical details of individual past actions."

Past actions are described as part of the existing condition/affect environment information.

3.1 Botany

3.1.1 Affected Environment


Figure 11: Resources Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

Resource Rationale for Dismissing from Further Analysis

Endangered Plant

Species

Two Endangered plant species are known to occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National forest, showy stickweed (Hackelia venusta) and Wenatchee Mt. checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva). There are no known populations of these species on the Okanogan portion of the Forest. These species were not located during field inventory and there is no suitable habitat for them within the project area.

Threatened Plant

Species

Two Threatened plant species are suspected to occur on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National

forest, water howellia (Howellia aquatalis) and Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis).

There are no known populations of these species on the Okanogan portion of the Forest.

These species were not located during field inventory and there is no suitable habitat for

them within the project area.

Resource Indicators and Measures

Resource indicators and the measures used for assessing project effects to botany are described below

(Figure 12). Reference information is contained in the full specialist report in the analysis file.

Figure 12: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects

Resource Element

Resource Indicator

Measure

(Quantify if possible)

Used to address: P/N, or key issue?

Source

(LRMP S/G; law or policy, BMPs, etc.)?

R6 Sensitive

plant Sanicula

marilandica

([Maryland] black

snake-root)

Occupied S.

marilandica habitat

(black snake-root)

Acres of

occupied habitat

lost.

Yes S/G 6/19, FSM 2620, FSM

2670

Individuals or

populations of S.

marilandica

Number of

individuals or

populations lost.

Yes S/G 6/19, FSM 2620, FSM

2670

Unique habitats

containing cedar,

cottonwood, or

aspen.

Change in unique

habitats containing

cedar, cottonwood,

and aspen.

Quality of cedar,

cottonwood, and

aspen

Yes FSM 2620 and 2670

Methodology and Impact Level Definitions

The methodology used to analyze each resource indicator is described below.

A prefield review of sensitive plant information was conducted before field surveys were done. A search

was made in the USDA Forest Service Natural Resource Information System, and Geographical

Information System (GIS) data on sensitive plants. No sensitive plant locations were noted in the analysis

area for this project. Populations of Sanicula marilandica (black snake-root) are recorded in the vicinity of

the analysis area.

The Forest Service also reviewed USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial photography

of the area to look for likely sensitive plant habitat. From the review of maps and photography, the

following habitats could be recognized: Chewuch River riparian area and associated floodplain vegetation,

and some upland coniferous forest. Because of the relatively low elevation of 2300 to 2500 feet, high

elevation species e.g. whitebark pine, were considered unlikely to occur in the analysis area.

A complete field survey was done of all areas proposed for activity, including access routes, potential

logjam sites, excavation areas, and a gravel pit that may be used for storage of material. Field surveys were


done in July and August of 2015 and 2016, when sensitive plants are recognizable. The species list used for

the survey was the Regional Forester’s special status list of 2015.

Resource Indicator: Occupied S. marilandica Habitat

Occupied habitat is suitable habitat, which occurs within delineated population boundaries established

during pre-disturbance fieldwork. A loss of occupied habitat would constitute an alteration of the habitat

such that one or more features of that habitat, thought to be crucial to support S. marilandica (black snake-

root) populations, are severely degraded or lost – barring some form of mitigation or restoration after-the-

fact. In order to determine effects to occupied habitat, it must be determined that actions would, in fact,

cause a loss of suitable habitat. Actions such as bulldozing, yarding, re-grading, and filling across the

ground level or altering the over-story or shrub layers within delineated populations would constitute a loss

of suitable occupied habitat. While impacts of ground-disturbing activities are relatively simple to quantify

in terms of acreage, a loss of over-story may have a more complex effect in terms of shade regime and root-

death. For this analysis, loss of occupied habitat was determined based on overlap of proposed ground-

disturbing activity and delineated S. marilandica populations. Access routes were assumed to have a

footprint 20 ft. wide.

Resource Indicator: Individuals or Populations of S. marilandica

For each population within the project area, a total count of S. marilandica (black snake-root) individuals is

known or estimated. Because S. marilandica is stoloniferous, clusters of plants growing near each other

were assumed to be clonal, and were counted as single individuals. Based on this number, and field

reconnaissance of areas of proposed disturbance, the loss of individuals can be estimated based on the area

of disturbance proportional to the area occupied, as well as field-estimates of the estimated number of

individuals occurring in the proposed disturbance.

For these analyses, a distance of less than 3000 feet of mostly suitable habitat between individuals may be

used to distinguish populations. This is subjective, based on the biology of the species and the habitat

within which it is located. If significant barriers to seed dispersal or large areas of unsuitable habitat exist

between individuals then the distance may be smaller. Loss of a population would entail a complete loss of

individuals or a loss of supportive habitat features with an initial retention of individuals but an ultimate

loss of individuals.

Resource Indicator: Change in Unique Habitats Containing Cedar (Thuja plicata), Cottonwood

(Populus balsamifera subsp. trichocarpa) and Aspen (Populus tremuloides).

Cedar is not found in abundance across the landscape on the Methow Valley Ranger District. They are

usually found in mesic microsites and are commonly associated with R6 Sensitive Botrychium spp.

(moonworts).

In dry east-side forests, aspen and wetland ecosystems are limited across the landscape and are biodiversity

hotspots for wildlife and plant species. These unique habitats usually have deeper, richer soils than the

surrounding coniferous forests. The partial shading overstory and rich soil in the understory supports many

herbs, forbs, and grasses in the understory community (Seager et al. 2013). Aspen’s palatable twigs and

foliage, and tendency to develop cavities, make it valuable habitat for wildlife such as deer (Odocoileus

sp.), elk (Cervus elephas), woodpeckers, and songbirds (Swanson et al. 2010).

Black cottonwoods are usually associated with low- to- moderate elevation rivers and streams.

It provides food and cover for a variety of wildlife species, including deer, elk, and beaver. Large birds use

the crowns for nesting sites and various animals rely on trunk cavities, which commonly result from heart

rot in stands nearing maturity. The rotten trunks of black cottonwood provide an important wildlife habitat


otherwise scarce, especially in the Cascades. The aggressive root systems of black cottonwood are effective

soil stabilizers and make the species useful in restoration of riparian areas, where it also provides protection

for the aquatic environment, especially in helping to maintain low water temperatures through shading

(NRCS, Black Cottonwood Plant Guide). Black cottonwood communities were much more common in the

past than today. Recent alterations to rivers and associated floodplains such as agriculture, dam building,

and channelization have caused drastic declines in black cottonwood habitat and communities (especially at

low elevations) (Kovalchik and Clausnitzer, 2004).

Aspen and cottonwood are also associated with Botrychium spp. and S. marilandica.

Botany Impact Level Definitions

The definitions below would be used to describe effects of the proposed actions on this resource.

Impact Types for botanical resources are:

Beneficial: No disturbance to or loss of S. marilandica populations, individuals, or occupied habitat

that would lead to further listing of the species. No disturbance to sites containing cedar,

cottonwood, or aspen trees that would cause the tree species to no longer thrive in those habitats. An

increase in aspen stand vigor and plant diversity in unique habitats.

Adverse: Disturbance that would cause a loss of S. marilandica populations, individuals or occupied

habitat, leading to further listing of the species. A disturbance to sites containing cedar, cottonwood,

or aspen trees that would cause the tree species to no longer thrive in those habitats. A decrease in

aspen stand vigor and plant diversity in unique habitats.

Impact Durations for botanical resources are:

Short-term: Immediately through the first growing season after treatments.

Long-term: 1 to 20 years.

Impact Intensities for botanical resources are:

Negligible: A change to botany resources that would be so small that it would not be of any

measurable or perceptible consequence. Sensitive plants and unique habitats containing cedar,

aspen, or cottonwood would not be affected or the effects to these plants would not be detectable.

Minor: Change to sensitive plants, unique habitats containing cedar, aspen, or cottonwood would be

detectable, although these effects would be localized and of little consequence. Activities would not

physically disturb individual sensitive plants. Unique habitats may experience alterations; however,

overall ecological functioning would be inconsequential and immeasurable.

Moderate: A change to botany resources that would be readily apparent and measurable.

Measurable effects could include physical disturbance or removal of sensitive plants, and

disturbance to unique habitats that alters the overall ecosystem function.

Major: Effects to sensitive plants, occupied habitats, and unique habitats would be readily apparent,

measurable, severe, and would occur on a regional scale. The viability of plant populations,

occupied habitats, and unique habitats would be altered. Mitigation measures to offset effects would

be extensive and success would not be assured.


Affected Environment

There are six populations (totaling 1,948 individuals) of the sensitive plant Sanicula marilandica (black

snake-root) occurring in the analysis area. Sanicula is considered a Sensitive species according to the

Region 6 Interagency Special Status & Sensitive Species Program (ISSSP) 2015 list. It is considered

secure globally and nationally, but imperiled in the state of Washington. Sanicula marilandica grows in

moist, low areas, such as meadows, riparian flood plains, moist woods, and marsh edges.

Within the analysis area, cedar extends from dry upland - Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) -Douglas fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) sites, to transitional zones between upland and riparian habitats, to riparian areas

in the floodplain of the Chewuch. Cedar in the upland habitats is not common; usually trees are small and

few in number. In riparian habitats, cedar can be found under dense canopies of Engelmann spruce, as it is

a shade tolerant species. As noted above, cedar is uncommon across the analysis area and the Methow

Valley R.D. Cedar within the analysis area have been relatively undisturbed.

Cottonwood and aspen occur along the floodplain of the Chewuch River and can be found on benches in

dry upland habitats. This type of deciduous vegetation comprises 75 acres (or 3.18%) of the 2359 acres of

the analysis area. Cottonwood and aspen are shade intolerant trees, and in some areas are being

outcompeted by Engelmann spruce. Conifers can outcompete cottonwood and aspen for sunlight, nutrients

and water. In areas where this is noticeable, cottonwood and aspen are showing signs of stress through

dead tops and insect and disease damage.

Figure 13: Resource Indicators and Measures for the Existing Condition

Resource Element Resource Indicator


Measure


Existing

Condition

(Alternative 1)

R6 Sensitive plant

Sanicula marilandica (black snake-root)

Occupied S. marilandica

habitat

Acres 30.6

Individuals and

populations of S. marilandica

Number of individuals and

populations.

1,948

individuals; 6 populations

Unique habitats

containing cedar,

cottonwood, or aspen.

Change in unique habitats

containing cedar,

cottonwood, and aspen.

Quality of cedar, cottonwood, and

cedar

Fair

Resource Indicator: Occupied S. marilandica Habitat, Individuals, and Populations by Site

Figure 14: Acres of Occupied Sanicula marilandica (black snake-root) Habitat by Site

Site Project Group Acres of Occupied

Habitat

Number of Individuals

Site 06080400507 River Mile 16 and Junior Creek 23.95 Est. 800

Site 06080400627 River Mile 16 1.10 35

Site 06080400234 River Mile 16 1.93 43

Site 06080400228 Junior Creek 0.45 70

Site 06080400226 Brevicormis Creek 1.93 Est. 800

Site 06080400230 Brevicormis Creek 1.24 Est. 200


Resource Indicator: Distribution of Unique Habitats Containing Cedar, Cottonwood, and Aspen

Figure 15: Distribution of Unique Habitats across the Analysis Area

Acres of deciduous vegetation Total acres within analysis

area

% of acres of deciduous

vegetation within analysis area

75 2359 3.17

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative would have a long-term, minor, benefit for S. marilandica habitats, populations, and

individuals. Plant habitat conditions and trends in the analysis area would remain unaltered. Existing

populations of S. marilandica (black snake-root) would be expected to remain stable or increase in size and

number. There may be a trend of understory build-up occurring, which could contribute to large wildfires

in the future. This could cause a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on S. marilandica. The response of S.

marilandica, the only known Sensitive plant in the analysis area, to wildfires is unknown. Natural

fluctuations in hydrology and associated land-features such as river side-channels could have a long-term,

moderate, adverse impact that potentially alters habitat conditions at sensitive plant sites. There would be no

change to unique habitats containing cedar, cottonwood, and aspen. The accumulation of Engelmann spruce

in cottonwood and aspen stands would have a long-tem, moderate, adverse impact, causing competition for

sunlight, nutrients, and water.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Figure 16: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative 2



Measure


Alternative 2

R6 Sensitive plant

Sanicula marilandica

Occupied S.

marilandica habitat

Acres 30.6

Individuals and

populations of S. marilandica

Number of individuals and

populations.

1,948 individuals; 6 populations

Unique habitats

containing cedar, cottonwood, or aspen.

Change in unique

habitats containing

cedar, cottonwood, and

aspen.

Quality of cedar, cottonwood,

and cedar

Slightly better than Existing

Conditions where cedar trees are being

replanted and Engelmann spruce are

felled in cottonwood and aspen stands.

Resource Indicator: Occupied S. marilandica Habitat

All but three access routes within occupied S. marilandica habitat are existing (with the exception of Site B,

which is discussed below), and no new access roads are planned within occupied S. marilandica habitats. A

population of S. marilandica was historically located on the access routes going to Sites O and P; however,

two field visits to the location did not find the population. This suggests that either the population is gone, or

the GPS points used to initially capture it were not accurate. Design criteria and mitigation measures, such

as having the District Botanist present when the access routes to B, O, and P is finalized, have been

established to protect the viability of occupied S. marilandica habitat. Even though access roads going

through occupied S. marilandica habitats are pre-existing, planned activities would have a minor, short-term,

adverse impact, as heavy equipment entering these sites would cause a minor amount of ground disturbance

and loss of understory vegetation. The minor amount of disturbance caused would be offset by the

revegetation plan that is in place for access roads.


Resource Indicator: Individuals and Populations of S. marilandica

A population of S. marilandica was found near an access route at Site B. Heavy equipment would

potentially use the access route, which is within the current side channel, to go to work sites. Moving the

access route a few feet farther from the population would keep direct adverse impact from occurring. There

is a population of Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) at Site B, in between the road and a population of S.

marilandica. This population of Tansy ragwort has been treated and machinery would be washed prior to

entering the adjacent S. marilandica population. A population of S. marilandica is known to occur along the

planned access routes to Sites O and P. As noted above, this population was not located during field surveys,

but, in order to protect undetected plants, the District Botanist would be present when the route to these sites

is constructed. Planned project activities would have a negligible impact on individuals and populations of

S. marilandica. Design criteria and mitigation measures are in place to protect populations and individuals.

Resource Indicator: Change in Unique Habitats Containing Cedar, Cottonwood, and Aspen

The existing access route into Site K contains a small pocket (less than ten) of small diameter (less than an

inch dbh), cedar trees. This pocket of cedar would be disturbed, as they occur within and adjacent to the

access route. The revegetation plan for this project has prescribed that for every cedar disturbed, five would

be replanted within the immediate area.

The long access route going into Site I goes through an aspen and cottonwood stand. Engelmann spruce

would be removed for access. There would be no removal of aspen or cottonwood when clearing the access

route. The only removal of these species would be due to incidental felling of Engelmann spruce. The

removal of Engelmann spruce would create an opening for aspen and cottonwood suckers to establish and

would remove some competition for resources within this area.

Project activities would have a minor, short-term, adverse effect on unique habitats, as ground disturbance

would occur. However, the replanting or cedar and the removal of Engelmann spruce, would have a long-

term, moderate, beneficial impact.

3.1.3 Cumulative Effects

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to Sanicula marilandica populations encompass

all known populations in the Chewuch Watershed, because they occur within a distance that they are capable

of intermixing genetically, via pollination. Spatially, this area comprises the Chewuch River valley from the

confluence of Twentymile Creek, south to the confluence of Eightmile Creek, and then extending northwest

up the bottom of Eightmile Creek to Township 36 North, Range 24 East, Section 9. The area is restricted to

the valley-bottoms, with two exceptions. Two populations occur on the western slopes of the canyon, one at

Township 37 North, Range 22 East, Section 30, and one in section 18.

The temporal boundaries are from the time of implementation, forward 20 years, because grazing and

herbicide treatments are expected to continue indefinitely in the Eightmile drainage. The populations

identified in this analysis are closest to the small, somewhat distinct population in the Eightmile drainage,

and are thus the most likely to contribute genetically to it. Small populations of Sanicula are more

susceptible to complete removal or eradication due to decreased reproductive success. Maintaining the

possibility of gene flow to this population is essential to ensuring its continued viability.

Invasive plant herbicide treatments are expected to commence/continue at populations occurring within the

cumulative effects analysis area. Herbicide treatments would not occur within Sensitive plant sites.


Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects

Analysis:

Stray cattle might also walk along the route and access the population, although the area is fenced and cattle

seldom get into the area. Quick revegetation and restoration would reduce the probability of this.

Grazing is expected to continue at the S. marilandica population on Eightmile Creek indefinitely.

Resource Indicator: Occupied S. Marilandica Habitat (Figure 17)

Figure 17: Occupied Habitat Cumulative Effects

Project

Overlap In

Time

Space

Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Forest

Service Grazing

Yes Yes No

Grazing is expected to continue indefinitely. One population up Eightmile

Creek is actively grazed. A loss of individuals in the project area may

diminish the likelihood of gene flow to this population. Grazing stress and

small population size, combined with decreased potential for gene flow may

diminish the viability of this population, decreasing the amount of occupied

habitat. However, it is also possible for livestock to spread the seed of this

plant, as it is burr-like. Furthermore, ongoing monitoring of the population has

documented very little impact due to grazing.

Forest

Service

Invasive

Plant

Treatment

with Herbicides

Yes Yes No

Treatment of Invasive plant populations with herbicide is expected to occur in

the future. Left un-treated, invasive plants have the potential to invade

Sensitive plant habitat. Judicious and careful herbicide application would not

have an effect on Sensitive plant populations. In cases where invasive plants

occur within occupied Sensitive plant habitat, spraying would be prohibited.

No effect to occupied habitat would be expected.

Resource Indicator: Individuals and populations of S. marilandica (Figure 18)

Figure 18: Individuals and Populations of S. Marilandica Cumulative Effects

Project

Overlap In

Time

Space

Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Forest Service

Grazing Yes Yes No

Grazing is expected to continue indefinitely. One population up Eightmile

Creek is actively grazed. A loss of individuals in the project area may

diminish the likelihood of gene flow to this population. Grazing stress and

small population size, combined with decreased potential for gene flow may

diminish the viability of this population, decreasing the number of

individuals. However, it is also possible for livestock to spread the seed of

this plant, as it is burr-like. Furthermore, ongoing monitoring at the population has documented very little impact due to grazing.

Forest Service

Invasive Plant

Treatment with Herbicides

Yes Yes No

Treatment of Invasive plant populations with herbicide is expected to occur in

the future. Left un-treated, invasive plants have the potential to invade

Sensitive plant habitat. Judicious and careful herbicide application would not

have an effect on Sensitive plant populations. In cases where invasive plants

occur within occupied Sensitive plant habitat, spraying would be prohibited.

No effect to individuals or populations as a whole would be expected.

Resource Indicator: Change in Unique Habitats Containing Cedar, Cottonwood, and Aspen (Figure

19)


Figure 19: Change in Unique Habitats Containing Cedar, Cottonwood, and Aspen

Project

Overlap In

Time

Space

Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Forest Service

Grazing

Yes Yes No

Repeated grazing of young aspen would eventually have a long-term, moderate,

adverse impact on the aspen clone. Healthy stands of black cottonwood can

usually withstand moderate grazing pressure due to the abundance of understory

shrubs. Browsing and grazing of cedar has not been evident on the Methow

Valley R.D. Cattle grazing within the project area in these unique habitats is very minimal, as cattle are not permitted in the Chewuch due to listed fish species.

Forest Service

Invasive Plant

Treatment with

Herbicides

Yes Yes No

Treatment of Invasive plant populations with herbicide is expected to occur in the

future. Left un-treated, invasive plants have the potential to invade unique

habitats. Judicious and careful herbicide application would not have an effect on

cedar, aspen, or cottonwood.

3.1.4 Conclusion

Under Alternative 2, there would be negligible cumulative effect to occupied S. marilandica (black snake-

root) habitats, populations and individuals, and unique habitats. Under Alternative 2, there would be a

minor, short-term, adverse impact on occupied S. marilandica habitat, as heavy equipment entering these

sites would cause a minor amount of ground disturbance and loss of understory vegetation. The minor

amount of disturbance caused would be offset by the revegetation plan that is in place for disturbed areas.

Project activities would have a negligible impact on individuals and populations of S. marilandica. Design

criteria and mitigation measures are in place to protect populations and individuals. Project activities would

have a minor, short-term, adverse impact on unique habitats, as ground disturbance would occur. However,

the replanting of cedar and the removal of Engelmann spruce would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial

impact. In conclusion, when combined with past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions,

Alternative 2 would be expected to have short-term, negligible to minor adverse and moderate beneficial

impacts on occupied S. marilandica habitats, populations and individuals, and unique habitats.

3.1.5 Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans


S&G 6-19 addresses Sensitive species, stating, “Sensitive plants and animals should be protected.” Through

design criteria and mitigation measures, this project would be in compliance with FP S&G 6-19.

Chewuch Watershed Analysis

In compliance with the watershed analysis, surveys were performed a year or more in advance prior to

activities.

Forest Service Manual

This project complies with FSM 2670 in that a Biological Evaluation was prepared and the project is

properly designed and mitigated to maintain viable populations, and does not contribute to or trend these

species toward being listed as threatened or endangered.

This project is in compliance with FSM 2620 in that it considers the distributions of species and habitats and

ensures that habitat is provided for the number and distribution of reproductive individuals needed to ensure

the continued existence of a species throughout its geographic range.


3.1.6 Summary of Botany Effects

With a No-Action alternative, there would be a long-term, minor, benefit for S. marilandica habitats,

populations and individuals. Plant habitat conditions and trends in the project area would remain un-altered.

Existing populations of S. marilandica would be expected to remain stable or increase in size and number.

There may be a trend of understory build-up occurring, which could contribute to large wildfires in the

future. This could cause a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on S. marilandica. The accumulation of

Engelmann spruce in cottonwood and aspen stands would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact,

causing competition for sunlight, nutrients, and water.

Under Alternative 2, there would be no cumulative impact to the S. marilandica population if the routes to

Sites B, O, and P are quickly blocked and revegetated after work is completed. With mitigation, this project

would have short-term, minor, adverse impacts to occupied S. marilandica habitats. Project activities would

have a negligible impact on individuals and populations of S. marilandica. Design criteria and mitigation

measures are in place to protect populations and individuals. Project activities would have a minor, short-

term, adverse impact on unique habitats containing cedar, cottonwood, and aspen, as ground disturbance

would occur. However, the replanting of cedar and the removal of Engelmann spruce would have a long-

term, moderate, beneficial impact.

Determination of Effects

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plants

For Howellia aquatilis – No Effect

For Spiranthes diluvialis – No Effect

For Sidalcea oregana var. calva – No Effect

For Hackelia venusta - No Effect

Figure 20: Determination of Effects for S. marilandica

Species ALT 1 ALT 2

Sanicula marilandica No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend

Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

3.2 Invasives


The prevention of new invasive plant infestations includes the use of clean equipment and materials to

prevent seed dispersal, the limiting of soil disturbance, and the restoration of disturbed sites with native

vegetation. All of these are part of the proposed action. The proposed action would create about 7 ½ acres

of new soil disturbance.

The control of existing invasive plant infestations includes containment and reduction or eradication of

existing infestations through treatment. Containment of an infestation includes the prevention of heavy

equipment use within the infested site.

The project area is a relatively low elevation riparian forest in a part of the Methow Valley Ranger District

that receives a lot of human use in the form of driving, camping, hunting, swimming, and floating on the

river. Because of the low elevation and prevalence of human use, the area is susceptible to invasive plant

infestations. There are more invasive plant species that are adapted to low elevations; humans and vehicles

can be dispersal vectors for weed seeds into the area. Due to this susceptibility, Forest Service personnel

inspect the area annually for presence of invasive plants.


The project area is susceptible to invasion of new infestations of invasive plants due to open public roads on

both sides of the area and the Chewuch River running through the middle of the area. Short dirt roads access

five dispersed campsites within the project area. Vehicles are a major vector for carrying and distributing

weed seeds, rivers and streams can transport weed seeds.



There would be no new infestations or increase in the potential for spread of existing populations of invasive

plants species established due to river restoration activities. There would be no use of equipment or

materials that might introduce weed seeds, no restoration equipment activity within the existing infestations

and there would be no new soil disturbance.


Equipment used at the restoration sites would be required to be cleaned prior to entering the National Forest.

Materials used to restore the site would be weed-free. Soil would be disturbed at each of the restoration

sites. Rehabilitation of each site and all the temporary access trail/roads would include the use of native

plants for revegetation. Post project annual inspections of each site and all temporary access locations would

be effective at early detection of any new invasive plant infestations.

Known invasive plant sites would be inspected and treated annually by the Forest Service prior to and after

the implementation of this project. There is potential for unintentional spread by project activities. Weed

seeds in the soil can live for years and it is possible that project activities could spread these. Post project

annual inspections of each restoration site and all temporary access locations would be effective at early

detection of any new invasive plant infestations. With these measures in place, no increase in invasive weeds

are expected.

The design features and mitigation measures included in Alternative 2 minimize the potential for the

establishment of new infestations and the spread of existing infestations.



The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to invasive plant species are the same as the

project area because the proposed activities would not affect any areas outside the project boundaries. The

temporal boundaries are ten years because that is the maximum estimated life span for seeds in the soil for

most invasive plant species.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Past and present activities have resulted in the existing condition. Reasonably foreseeable future activities

include the completion of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Forest-wide Site-Specific Invasive

Species Treatment EIS. This would increase the treatment options available for the Forest Service to use on

existing populations of invasive plant species. It would authorize the use of new generation herbicides that

are more effective and environmentally safer than those currently used.


Figure 21: Invasive Plant Control Cumulative Effects

Project Overlap In

Time Space

Measurable

Cumulative

Effect

Extent,

Detectable

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Forest-wide Site-Specific Invasive Species Treatment EIS

Yes Yes Yes

Implementation of the EIS would increase the options for control of existing populations and would authorize treatment options that are more effective than those currently used. No increase in invasive species is expected.


Alternative 2 would be compliant with the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan) because it follows the applicable standards and guidelines. It includes design criteria and

mitigation measures that are from the 2005 PNW ROD.

3.2.5 Summary

Alternative 1 would have no effect on invasive plant species. Alternative 2 would result in an increase in the

potential for the spread of existing populations and the establishment of new populations. However, design

criteria and mitigation measure activities would minimize this potential.

3.3 Water Resources


The project analysis area contains habitat for fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),

Management Indicator Species (MIS), and species for which Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been

designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Figure 22). There are

no Region 6 Sensitive Species within the project area.

Figure 22: Fish Species Present in the Project Analysis Area by Category

ESA MIS EFH

Spring Chinook

(Endangered)

Spring Chinook Chinook

Westslope Cutthroat Coho

Summer Steelhead

(Threatened)

Interior Redband

Rainbow

Bull Trout (Threatened) Steelhead

Bull Trout

Eastern Brook Trout

The project area provides spawning and rearing habitat for Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook and

Upper Columbia River steelhead, listed as endangered and threatened under the ESA. Columbia River bull

trout, which are listed as threatened under the ESA, use this area for migration, rearing, and over-wintering

habitat. Additionally, the project area provides habitat for MIS and EFH listed above. National Marine

Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have designated the Chewuch River as critical habitat

for Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout.


Considered but Not Analyzed In Detail

The following indicators were considered but were dropped from further analysis as listed in the rationale in

Figure 23.

Figure 23: Resource Indicators Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

Resource Indicator Rationale for Dismissing from Further Analysis

Chemical contaminants

Use of equipment or the fueling of equipment in proximity to streams can add toxins to

waterways. These potential effects are mitigated to negligible levels through the implementation

of design criteria that keep chemical contaminants outside areas where they could be delivered to streams in measurable volumes or contaminants are contained by BMPs.

Physical barriers There are no causal mechanisms in the proposed action that would create (or remove) migration

barriers for fish.

Water Quantity This project would not affect water yield in any measurable way from vegetation cover removal

or increase/decrease in the drainage network (roads).

Water Quality

(temperature)

This project would not have a measurable effect upon temperature at the reach or HUC scale.

Small-localized benefits to temperature through the creation of deeper pools and connectivity to

hyphoreic flow in the backwater alcoves may occur. Direct solar radiation is the largest driver for

temperature alteration and the removal of a few overstory trees in the riparian area would not

decrease shading or increase temperatures. Revegetation after implementation of the project would increase shade and have a positive effect on temperature.

Soil Resources

This project would have a short-term impact on soil resources (porosity and areas of bare soil).

The impacts would be minimal, short-lived and mitigated by BMPs and rehabilitation. The project

would restore porosity, productivity, nutrient cycling, and vegetation establishment with the decommissioning of access routes and site restoration.

Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH)

This project would have a short-term impact to the river. Impacts would be short-term in duration

(a few weeks) and the project would improve habitat conditions once completed. The project

would not adversely modify EFH in the project area. This project results in a “will not adversely affect” EFH determination.

Management Indicator

Species (MIS)

The MIS analysis addresses effects to Westslope cutthroat trout, Redband rainbow trout, and

eastern brook trout. The other species are addressed as ESA listed species. The project covers less

than 1% of suitable Westslope cutthroat trout, Redband rainbow trout, and eastern brook trout

habitat across the Forest. We expect some localized negative effects to individual fish and

sediment levels that could lead to a low-level temporary effect to MIS. A very small proportion

of MIS habitat in the project area and the Forest would be impacted by the action. Once the

project is complete, MIS habitat would be in an improved state. Therefore, the effects of the

action to MIS are consistent with the Forest Plan and thus continued viability of MIS is expected on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.


Resource indicators and the measures (Figure 24) used for assessing project effects to water resources are

described below. Reference information is contained in the full specialist report in the analysis file.




Indicator Measure

Key

Issue Source

Channel


Wood Density Log Jams/mi Yes (Shull and Butler 2014)

(USDA-FS 2008)

Pools Pools/mi

Yes (Shull and Butler 2014) Deep, Complex Pools/mi

Off-Channel

Habitat Quantity of Habitat Yes (Shull and Butler 2014)

Water Quality Sediment Nephelometric Turbidity Units

(NTU) No Normal turbidity meter methods

Scenic River

Outstanding

Remarkable

Values/Biological Effect to Fisheries

Outstandingly

Remarkable

Fishery

Value/ESA Fish Species


At Risk, Properly Functioning1 Yes

(Shull and Butler 2014)

(USDA-FS 2008)

(PACFISH 1995)

(USDA-FS 1989)

USDA, USDC, and USDI 2004

Methodology and Impact Level Definitions

Aquatic Habitat Assessment Method

Information used to establish baseline and desired fish habitat conditions came from a few sources: the most

recent Chewuch River stream survey report (USDA-FS 2008) and the Desired Condition Report (Shull and

Butler 2014). The stream survey report provided information on instream wood levels, pool quantities and

qualities, stream sediment levels, and off-channel habitat conditions. The Desired Condition Report

summarized the range of desirable wood levels (number of pieces and logjams per mile), pool frequencies,

and off-channel habitat based on local rivers, new scientific research, and federal land management

direction. Habitat conditions were also compared to the Okanogan Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines,

PACFISH RMOs, and the Habitat Indicators Table from the 2004 Analytical Process for Developing

Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

(PACFISH 1995; USDA-FS 1989) and (USDA-FS and others 2004). These documents provided a

comparison of desired fish habitat conditions to existing conditions.

Resource Indicator: Wood Density

Large wood is important for reducing river energy, forming pools, and adding overall habitat complexity.

The project hydrologist and fish biologist relied upon the most recent detailed Chewuch River habitat

survey to identify existing large wood quantities within the project reach (USDA-FS 2008). This provided

the size of large wood (LW), number of pieces, number of logjams, and their position in the river channel.

Wood data from this was compared to the quantities (per mile) from the recent Desired Condition Report

(Shull and Butler 2014), which summarizes the range of desirable wood levels (number of pieces and

logjams) based on local rivers, new scientific research, and federal land management direction. This

document defines a range of wood pieces per mile, key pieces per mile (greater than 32 inches dbh), and

logjams per mile that occur under properly functioning wood conditions. This allowed the project

1 These determinations are based on the condition of the existing large wood, pool habitat, and off-channel

pool habitat as compared to the NMFS and FWS habitat indicator table, in project files.


hydrologist and fish biologist to determine where existing wood levels were departed from desired

conditions.

The proposed wood treatment is to construct engineered logjams that would function as a single unit rather

than individual pieces of wood. Individual pieces of wood are a natural component of a river and are

important for habitat diversity. However, because multiple pieces of wood would influence river process as

an individual logjam, the unit of measure for assessing the changes to habitat diversity would be the number

of logjams per mile.

Resource Indicator: Pools

Pool habitat provides important rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and trout and deep pools are important

cool water holding areas for adults. The pool indicator was split into total pools per mile (pool frequency)

and total deep, complex pools per mile. Deep, complex pools are defined as pools deeper than 3 feet with

cover from woody debris. The Forest Service used data on total pool frequencies and deep, complex pool

frequencies inventoried in the Chewuch River to establish baseline conditions (USDA-FS 2008). The pool

frequencies were compared to ranges defined in the Desired Condition Report (Shull and Butler 2014). The

project hydrologist and fish biologist determined if existing pool frequencies are departed from desired

conditions. The units of measure for assessing existing conditions and the changes to habitat diversity

would be the number of total pools and deep, complex pools per mile.

Resource Indicator: Off-Channel Habitat

Off-channel areas provide important rearing areas for juvenile salmonids during spring runoff periods and

other times throughout the year. The 2008 Chewuch River survey (USDA-FS 2008) provided data on

existing off-channel habitat conditions which included a number of habitat features like pools, cover, large

wood, and their accessibility. Numerical standards or desired number of off-channel features available does

not exist. Desired conditions are described as off-channel habitat existing at a frequency and condition that

occurs naturally (USDA-FS and others 2004). Alluvial fans are key geomorphic features in the Chewuch

River bottom that naturally form off-channel habitat upstream. The project hydrologist and fish biologist

compared existing off-channel habitat to what is expected to occur in areas above alluvial fans.

Resource Indicator: Sediment

Fish species in the Chewuch River are sensitive to high sediment levels in spawning substrates. Excessive

fine sediments reduce pool habitat, spawning habitat quality, and the availability of off-channel rearing

habitat. Fish survival rates decrease when excess fine sediment reduce habitat quality and accessibility.

McNeil Core Sediment surveys conducted in 2012 (USDA-FS 2012) provided fine sediment data to assess

fine sediment levels in the Chewuch River,. Sediment data was compared to the Okanogan Forest Plan’s

sediment standard of percent fines (<1mm) in spawning areas. The project hydrologist assessed sediment

effects using professional judgment based on past effectiveness of the proposed design criteria.

Resource Indicator: Outstandingly Remarkable Fishery Values/ESA Fish Species

Attributes of outstandingly remarkable fishery values includes the following attributes: cold and clean

water, clean channel substrates, stable streambanks, healthy streamside vegetation, complex channel habitat

created by large wood, cobbles, boulders, streamside vegetation, and undercut banks, deep pools, off-

channel habitat and waterways free of barriers. Large wood levels, deep pool habitat, and off-channel

habitat are the most applicable attributes for this project.

Fish habitat in the lower Chewuch River below Lake Creek is identified as a Priority 2 area for salmon and

steelhead recovery (RTT 2013; Inter-Fluve 2013). Priority 2 areas are defined as water bodies that support

federally endangered and threatened fish species and have a high level of at-risk habitat indicators.


Existing habitat conditions were compared to the Okanogan Forest Plan standards, PACFISH RMOs, the

Desired Condition Report, and the Habitat Indicators Table from the 2004 Analytical Process for

Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan

Area (HIT) (PACFISH 1995; Shull and Butler 2014; USDA-FS 1989) and (USDA-FS and others 2004).

The project fish biologist assessed whether fish habitat conditions for ESA fish was non-functioning,

functioning at risk, or properly functioning.

This project would result in some unintended short-term negative effects to ESA listed fish species and their

critical habitats. The project fish biologist made an ESA project effect determination to listed fish species

and their designated critical habitat. ESA effects determination to listed fish and their habitat was

determined by considering project effects during construction with anticipated impacts to and biological

needs of the fish species present. The project fish biologist assed short-term effects based on the proposed

action and fish life stages present during the work. The Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic

Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon and Washington (FWS No.: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090 &

NMFS Tracking No.: NWP-2013-9664) provided ESA effect determinations from similar activities

analyzed in the past.

Impact Framework and Duration Definitions

Impact topics have been selected for this analysis based on their potential to affect important resources and

other key issues identified during planning. Analyses in this section are qualitative assessments based on

review of scientific literature and information collected by the field specialists and provided by other

agencies.

Nature of Effect for Hydrologic and Aquatic Resources

Beneficial—Moves the system to or towards desired conditions (river complexity and fish habitat quality)

and fish abundance improves or maintains robust local populations.

Adverse—Moves the system outside of or away from the desired conditions (river complexity and fish

habitat quality) and fish abundance declines.

Duration of Effect for Hydrologic and Aquatic Resources

Short-term—an effect that would not be detectable within a short amount of time, generally within hours

to a few weeks after the proposed activity has been carried out.

Long-term—a change in a resource that would not return to its condition prior to the activity for more than

a few weeks.

Effect Intensities for Hydrologic and Aquatic Resources

None: No impact to hydrologic or aquatic resources.

Negligible: A change that would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible

consequence. Aquatic or hydrologic resources would not be affected or the effects on these resources would

not be detectable.

Minor: A change that would be small and localized and of little consequence. Effects on aquatic or

hydrologic resources would be detectable. These effects would be localized, short-term, and

inconsequential.


Moderate: A change that would be readily apparent and measurable, localized, and possibly long-term.

Measurable effects could include a substantial sediment delivery disturbance or a measurable increase in

logjams. Mitigation measures proposed would help offset adverse effects.

Major: A noticeable change to a physical or biological resource that would be measurable and result in a

severely adverse or major beneficial impact. Effects on hydrologic or aquatic resources would be readily

apparent, measurable, severe and long-term and felt on a regional scale. Mitigation measures proposed to

offset adverse effects would be extensive and success would not be assured.

Water Resources Affected Environment



Indicator Measure Existing Condition

Channel


Wood Density Log Jams/mi 0.7

Pools Pools/mi 6.7-9.5

Deep, Complex Pools/mi 5.8-7.5

Off-Channel

Habitat Quantity of Habitat

Four off-channel habitat

features present

Water Quality Sediment NTU Properly Functioning

Scenic River

Outstanding

Remarkable

Values/Biological Effect to Fisheries

Outstandingly

Remarkable

Fishery

Value/ESA Fish Species


At Risk, Properly Functioning Functioning At Risk


Background

Large wood (LW) plays an important role in aquatic ecosystems especially in the Cascade Mountain hydro-

physiographic province. Instream wood influences stream channel shape and form by increasing channel

diversity, pool frequency, and other favorable fish habitat conditions. Since European settlement, the

amount and size of large wood in stream systems has decreased because of human activities. A reduction in

wood quantities has resulted in adjustments to channel maintenance processes such as a loss of complex

pool habitats and high quality spawning areas. This general trend is evident in the Chewuch River.

Past riparian management actions reduced habitat complexity in the Chewuch River. Examples include; the

Forest Service constructed roads adjacent to the Chewuch River, logged trees on the floodplain, and

removed large wood from the River. These past actions altered processes necessary for the supply and

retention of instream wood. Impaired processes include the following:

Past clearing and development of riparian and floodplain areas reduced wood recruitment to the river.

Stream channelization, bank armoring, roadways, and protection of property reduced the river’s

ability to naturally erode the banks and recruit large wood from riparian areas and floodplains.

Reduced in-channel recruitment and retention simplified the river and reduced the river’s ability to

retain wood once it has been recruited. The lack of available large “key pieces” necessary to capture

other large wood pieces has also contributed to less in-channel retention.


The processes affecting large wood availability, recruitment, and retention in the Chewuch River have been

altered to varying degrees and they are unlikely to fully recover on their own with the existing road network

and continued fire suppression. Natural restoration of the underlying processes would take many decades or

centuries (e.g. growth of large trees and more natural wood recruitment rates) and in some cases, as bank

armoring associated with a roadway, may never fully recover. Current fish habitat conditions are

functioning at risk and limiting the recovery of ESA-listed fish. Restoration of in-channel large wood is

necessary in the near-term to increase channel complexity and contribute to the recovery of ESA-listed

salmonids until more natural wood recruitment and loading occurs.

Desired Conditions

The Desired Condition Report (Shull and Butler 2014) identified large wood, logjams, and pool quantities

(features per mile) that make up high quality salmon and trout habitat within the Chewuch River (Figure

17). These desired conditions were developed from a collection of sources including historic wood

quantities in the Chewuch River, reference reach wood and pool quantities, and recent scientific studies on

natural wood loading levels in unmanaged rivers of the eastern Cascade Mountains. See the Desired

Condition Report, in project files, for more details.

The desired density of wood greater than 12” in diameter is 105 to 172 pieces per mile. The desired density

of large wood pieces greater than 20” in diameter and 35’ long is > 33 pieces per mile. The desired logjam

density is between 10 and 19 jams per mile (Figure 26).

Figure 26: Desired wood densities for the Chewuch River project reach.

Large Wood/mile

(>12” diameter)

Large Wood/mile

(> 20” diameter) Log Jams /mile

105 – 172 ≥ 33 10 – 19

Existing Conditions

The 2008 Chewuch River survey measured wood in the following categories:

small > 6” in diameter and >20’ long

medium >12” in diameter and >35’ long

large >20” in diameter and >35’ long

Total wood numbers ranged from 20.1 to 37.2 pieces per mile and medium and large pieces ranged from

15.3 to 23.3 pieces per mile. Large pieces greater than 20 inches in diameter were scarce at only 2.2 to 5.8

pieces per mile (USDA-FS 2008). Values from the 2002 survey were similar.

Key logs are large stable pieces that promote logjams and form pools, which are important for forming

quality fish habitat. Using values from (Fox and Bolton 2007), the estimated key log volumes for rivers the

size of the Chewuch are in the range of 9.75-10.5 m3 per mile. Log volumes were not specifically measured

during the Chewuch stream surveys.

Logjams were inventoried over a 4.5-mile reach from RM 15.5 to RM 20.0 with only four jams observed.

Logjam density was 0.7 jams per mile (Figure 27).

Figure 27: Existing Wood Densities for the Chewuch River Project Reach.

Large Wood/mile

(>12” diameter)

Large Wood/mile

(> 20” diameter) Log Jams /mi

15.3-23.3 2.2-5.8 0.7


Natural wood accumulation has occurred and some active wood recruitment is happening currently and is

increasing the habitat diversity. The level of instream wood and logjams within the project reach is well

below the desired wood loading for complex, high quality fish habitat.

Instream large wood is one of the most important habitat sources and cover for salmon and trout

(MacDonald and others 1991). Large wood provides suitable habitat over a wide range of flow conditions.

(Bisson and Sedell 1984), (Sedell and others 1984), and (Bisson and others 1987) found that relationships

exist between large wood, habitat complexity, and salmon and trout production. Large wood also provides

cover to facilitate juvenile rearing and downstream migration (Murphy and others 1986), (Bisson and others

1987), (Everest and Chapman 1972). Wood cover also reduces predation (Bisson and Sedell 1984). Studies

observed decreases in fish numbers when wood was removed citing the number and size of pools decreased

and water velocity increased (Fausch and Northcote 1992). These studies suggest instream wood is

important for fish production and the existing low wood levels in the project reach are likely limiting fish

production.


Background

Wood and sediment deposition patterns function as primary factors in pool formation in the mainstem

Chewuch. Pool habitat is low in quantity and quality in many segments of the Lower Chewuch River below

the confluence with Lake Creek (RM 24.3). In systems like the Chewuch River, which have low gradient

alluvial bottoms and pool/riffle sequences, large wood plays a major role in the formation of pools. The lack

of large woody material in the channel has led to the low frequency and quality of pools. Over time as wood

from fires is redistributed some additional pool formation is expected to occur. In the interim, wood

additions are necessary to accelerate pool formation.

Desired Conditions

The Desired Condition Report (Shull and Butler 2014) identified desired pool frequencies for total pools

and deep, complex pools (Figure 28). The desired pool density is 19 to 31 pools/mile and for deep, complex

pools, density is 12-15/mile. The desired percent pool habitat by reach is in the range of 50 to 80 percent.

Figure 28: Desired pool condition for the Chewuch River project reach.

Pools/Mile Deep, Complex Pools/Mile % Pool Habitat

19 - 31 12 - 15 50-80%

Existing Conditions

Chewuch pool inventories identified the frequency and quality (depth and cover) of pools within this

segment of the river. Quality pools are defined as having depths at least 3 feet with 40 percent or greater

cover. Pools from the 2008 habitat survey ranged from 6.7 to 9/mile depending on the reach and deep pools

ranged from 5.8 to 7.7 pools/mile. The percent pool habitat ranged from 25.2% to 35.2%. This is displayed

in Figure 29.

Figure 29: Existing pool condition for the Chewuch River project reach.

Pools/Mile Deep, Complex Pools/Mile % Pool Habitat

6.7 – 9.5 7.1-7.7 25.2-35.18%

Existing pool habitat is generally below the desired condition. Total pools and deep, complex pools per mile

range from well below to slightly below desired conditions. The percentage of pool area is also below

desired conditions. Deep, complex pools are the most important habitat feature lacking in the project area.


Pools provide important habitat throughout all salmon and trout life stages (Bjornn and Reiser 1991)

(Meehan 1991). Pools are critical for adult fish resting habitat; as juvenile and sub-adult rearing habitat for

various species; as optimal spawning and inter-gravel rearing locations; and as refuge habitat from drought,

cold winter temperatures, and high flows. Pools slow the transport of nutrients and store them to foster food

production within them and in adjacent riffles. Pools serve as sediment storage sites, which help to buffer

the detrimental effects of sediment pulses on stream biota during high discharge periods. Pool tails provide

optimal spawning areas for salmonids due to hydraulic gravel sorting and inter-gravel flow characteristics

(USDA-FS 1994). Baigun and others (2000) observed adult steelhead select deep pool habitat over other

habitats such as glides and riffles. They cited the cooler temperatures associated with the deeper pools as

providing more preferred habitat.


Background

Off-channel areas provide important rearing habitats for juvenile salmonids in the Upper Columbia River

System. Off-channel habitats are created and maintained in certain settings by fluvial geomorphic

processes. (Benda and others 2003) found that alluvial fans create nick points in receiving rivers and the

effect is an increase in channel aggradation and a decrease in channel gradient above. They found wide

floodplains and side channels associated with these increases in sediment storage. Side channel habitat in

floodplains is generally formed by large floods that reshape or redirect the river channel via bank migration

and channel avulsions. Surface flow side channels are associated with abandoned river channels (Beechie

and others 1994). Some sort of control such as a logjam is frequently needed to maintain the channel flow.

Backwater pools tend to form along the channel margin by an eddy downstream from obstructions or from

backwatering upstream from an obstruction (Bisson and others 1982).

Off-channel habitat in the project reach is functioning at risk due to apparent infilling from excess fine

sediment. The river is believed to have down cut over the years disconnecting the main channel from

accessing the floodplain. This has led to juvenile fish access being cut off from important off-channel

habitat that provides refuge from high flows.

Desired Conditions

There is no numeric target established for the amount or condition of side channel or off-channel habitat

within the project area. Based on conditions described in the Desired Condition Report, the desired

condition is for side channel and off-channel habitat to occur in reaches just above alluvial fans, have

habitat complexity, and to provide high quality summer and overwintering habitat for juvenile salmonids.

Existing Conditions

The project area has low energy, depositional segments formed by alluvial fans deposited by tributary streams

which is consistent with observations by (Benda and others 2003). Both active and remnant side channel and

backwater habitats are present, but lack the structure, stability, and cover associated with ideal over-wintering

habitats. Off channel habitat between Boulder Creek (RM 9.5) and Lake Creek (RM 24.3), which includes the

project reach, consisted of 4.2% of the total habitat. Four off-channel habitat features exist within the project

area that total about 0.4 miles of habitat. Much of the habitat has become disconnected likely due to infilling

with fine sediments during high spring run-off. Many areas are losing or lack river connectivity. As an

example, in a 2002 survey, over 1,000 spring Chinook juveniles and six rainbow/steelhead juveniles were

observed in a 300-meter long side channel on the right side of the floodplain at RM 12.2. No salmonids were

observed in the same side channel in 2008. The water temperature was noticeably warmer due to the lack of

flow in the side channel. Backwater habitat features exist but they lack adequate cover to protect juvenile fish

against predators. Therefore, the existing off-channel habitat is below desired conditions.



Background

Weathered granitic soil is common throughout the upper two-thirds of the watershed and that is conducive

to high erosion rates. The Chewuch watershed naturally has moderate to high erosion potential on about two

thirds of the drainage area (Okanogan National Forest 1994). Since 2001, the Chewuch has seen substantial

wildfire activity that burned in total about 60% of the basin. The extensive wildfire activity increased

sediment loads for a few years following the fires that ranged from fine to boulder-sized rocks.

The naturally high levels of erosion and sediment delivery to the Chewuch River likely peaked following

major disturbances such as fire and flood. This was accompanied by large wood, gravel, and, in the cases of

landslides and debris torrents, larger rocks. Today the nature of sediment delivery to the Chewuch has shifted

from being sporadic in nature to having a higher chronic or constant delivery component. This chronic

component is delivered from roads in tributary drainages and bank erosion from channel down cutting in the

lower 25 miles of the river. This type of sediment arrives as fine silt without other structure such as logs and

gravel. Fine sediment fills in pool habitat and off-channel habitat reducing their frequency and availability.

Desired Conditions

The Okanogan Forest Plan set a standard for fine sediment levels in spawning habitat for fine particles < 1

millimeter as being less than 20% of the substrates. Fine sediment levels of this percentage are considered

properly functioning conditions.

Existing Conditions

In 2004, short duration, high intensity storms and subsequent landslides in the burned areas produced high

flows and turbid waters. The percent of fine sediments in spawning gravels increased substantially in all

four sampled reaches of the Chewuch River subsequent to the landslides and the 2006 spring run-off, which

mobilized the sediment.

All four reaches sampled for sediment in the Chewuch River in 2012 were well below the 20% guideline in

the Forest Plan. Data collected in 2012 is displayed in Figure 30 showing the percentage of fine sediment

smaller than 1 mm in spawning substrate in the Chewuch River. In 2012, the percent fine sediments < 1%

increased from 2011 in two of the three reaches that were sampled in both years (reaches 2 to 4).

Figure 30: Summary of 2012 Chewuch McNeil Core Data: % Fine Sediment < 1 mm

Reach River

Mile

Mean %

fines <1 mm

Standard

deviation <1mm 95% CI

Meets Forest Plan

Standards1

1 21.7 9.26 5.11 6.02<µ<12.51 Yes

2 17.5 11.08 2.40 9.55<µ<12.60 Yes

3 15.4 14.49 3.58 12.22<µ<16.76 Yes

4 9.3 13.35 5.31 9.97<µ<16.72 Yes

1Okanogan Forest Plan standards calls for < 20% fine sediments <1 mm

in size in spawning gravels.

Surface fines in transport reaches are below the Forest Plan standard and overall well below. Therefore, we

consider the Lower Chewuch River to be at desired condition for fine sediment levels and considered

properly functioning.



Background

The Lower Chewuch River watershed is important for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead trout

spawning, rearing, and adult holding. Historically, the Chewuch River was considered an excellent

producing area for Chinook salmon and steelhead. It is extremely well suited for the production of early

running varieties of Chinook salmon and steelhead based on the channel gradient, natural substrate

composition, and habitat complexity. In the past, road construction, grazing, wood removal, and agricultural

practices have degraded habitat conditions by contributing to elevated stream temperatures, increased

sedimentation and channel embeddedness, reductions in the extent of riparian vegetation, and lack of large

wood and pool habitat. Because of these various activities, salmon, steelhead, and other fish species have

decreased in abundance compared to historical abundance in the Upper Columbia River system.

Desired Conditions

The desired conditions for the “outstandingly remarkable fishery values” are for the above habitat indicators

to be within the described desired conditions. This may take years to achieve, but once the large wood

levels, pool habitat, and off-channel habitat conditions are within desired conditions, fish habitat quality

within the project reach would be near or at full capacity. Habitat conditions of this nature generally result

in properly functioning fish production, which describes a desired condition for fishery values that would be

associated with a Wild and Scenic River.

Existing Conditions

A high percentage of the spring Chinook salmon that return to the Methow Sub-basin spawn and rear in the

Chewuch River. A small proportion (~12%) of the steelhead spawn and rear in the Chewuch River. Past

stream cleaning (wood removal), riparian logging, and road development has greatly reduced the amount of

instream wood in the lower 24 miles of the Chewuch River that includes the project reach. The lack of large

woody material in the channel is believed to have led to the low frequency and quality of pools. Off-channel

habitat is lacking as the river has become disconnected from side-channels in many areas. Current fine

sediment levels are within desired conditions but are likely higher than natural conditions because the

existing road network is contributing excess sediment that otherwise would not occur. Many habitat

elements within the Chewuch River are functioning on National Forest System lands. Connectivity and

access between the varieties of habitats required by migratory fishes is good. Riparian habitat in the

watershed is generally in good condition.

Some challenges remain such as the high density of riparian roads and past timber harvest in riparian areas

that continues to result in reduced large wood levels and reduced recruitment potential. Roads and naturally

high sediment loads have affected the river in the recent past.

Total pool frequencies, deep and complex pool frequencies, and instream large wood are lacking in the river

and within the project reach. Data suggests that quality and access to off-channel habitat may be reduced

due to reduced large woody debris levels, reduced wood recruitment, and natural sedimentation. The

“outstandingly remarkable fishery values” for the river and project reach are below desired conditions and

considered functioning at risk. The habitat conditions for ESA fish species is considered functioning at risk.




If chosen, the 15.5-20 mile reach of the Chewuch River would remain below desired conditions for the

indicators of large wood, pools, and off-channel habitat. Wood accumulation has occurred and some active

wood recruitment is happening; increasing the habitat diversity. The level of instream wood and logjams are

well below the desired wood loading for complex, high quality fish habitat. The processes affecting large

wood availability, recruitment, and retention have all been altered over time, and are unlikely to fully

recover on their own with the existing road network and continued fire suppression. Natural restoration of

the underlying processes would take many decades or centuries (e.g. growth of large trees and more natural

wood recruitment rates), and in some cases, such as with bank armoring associated with a roadway, may

never be fully recovered (Shull and Butler 2014).

Existing pool habitat is below desired condition metrics. Total pools and deep, complex pools per mile

range from below to slightly below desired conditions. The percentage of pool area is also below desired

conditions. These habitat features are important for juvenile and adult fish to avoid predators and to

potentially provide cool water habitat during the summer. The desired condition for deep, complex pools is

12-15 pools/mile and the existing deeper pools are less than 5 feet deep, lacking wood or live vegetation

cover. The total amount of pool habitat may be near natural ranges, but the amount of deep pool habitat

(>5ft) and complex cover within pools is deficient.

Off-channel habitat is present in the form of backwater and side channel habitat, but connectivity, cover,

and complexity in off-channel areas is below desired conditions and would remain so in the foreseeable

future.


Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures

In order to comply with applicable ESA and Clean Water Act laws, this project would follow a suite of

design criteria described under the Conservation Measures for Programmatic Biological Opinion for

Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II) (FWS No.: 01EOFW00-

2013-F-0090 & NMFS Tracking No.: NWP-2013-9664). Design criteria include measures to minimize

disturbances to riparian vegetation, the river channel, and to ESA listed fish. Some example measures

include working in the river during the Washington State designated instream work window of July 1-31,

isolating the work area in the river channel, removing all fish from the work area prior to excavation using

the (Service 2000) electrofishing guidelines, and using standard erosion control features like protecting

disturbed banks with native vegetation. These design criteria have been used for a decade and have proven

to be effective in minimizing project effects to fish species and their habitat. See the above document for

detailed descriptions for all design and mitigation criteria.


Figure 31: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative 2, Constructed Features Added


Indicator Measure Alt 2

Channel


Large Wood Log Jams/mi ~6.2

Pools

Pools/mi ~5.8 pools/mile of various sizes created

from large wood additions.

Deep, Complex Pools/mi

~2.2 pools/mile created from large wood

additions and with adding wood to existing pools.

Off-Channel

Habitat Quality/Quantity of Habitat

1 new off-channel habitat feature created

and one existing feature improved.

Water Quality Sediment NTU Small temporary increase, remain same

over time.

Scenic River

Outstanding

Remarkable

Values/Biological

Effect to Fisheries

Remarkable

Fishery

Value/ESA Fish

Species


At Risk, Properly Functioning

Improved; moving towards properly

functioning


Approximately 28 wood structures would be constructed. The structures include constructing 13 bank jams,

7 apex jams, 2 cover habitat log structures, 1 side channel enhancement (3 log structures + 3 pools

excavated), and 3 sites where trees would be pulled over. Approximately 850 logs, of various sizes (189

per/mile), would be added to the river over these 28 log jams. The addition of 28 log structures would

increase existing jams by 6.2 jams/mile. Post project, the log jam density would be 6.9 jams per mile which

is below desired conditions (10 -19 jams/mile). The intent of the project is to not move all indicators to

desired conditions at once, but to perform an adjustment over existing conditions to allow more time for

natural large wood recruitment and geomorphological processes to bring the river in a balance with large

wood. Adding wood to the river would be a moderate, beneficial effect to the wood density indicator.


Twenty three of the constructed log jams sites would be located in areas that do not have pool habitat.

These jams would scour deep pools and provide diverse habitat for juvenile and adult fish within a few

years. At one existing side channel, three pools would be excavated to provide juvenile rearing habitat.

Trees would be added to two existing pools to provide juvenile and adult cover. The treatments would

create ~26 new pools and change two existing simple pools into complex, cover habitat type pools with the

added wood. This would increase total pool frequency from 6.7 - 9.5/mile to 12.5 - 15.3/mile, almost

doubling pool frequency. Deep complex pool frequency would go from 5.8 - 7.5 per mile to 8.0 - 9.7/mile,

an increase of 30 - 38 percent. Total pool area would increase as well. The increase in pool habitat and

wood cover would almost double the amount of quality juvenile rearing and adult holding habitat within

this reach. Increasing total pool habitat and the amount of complex, deep pools would be a long-term

moderately beneficial effect to the pool indicator. Survival of juveniles and adults using this reach would be

expected to improve.


One old side channel (~ ½ mile long) would be opened to provide off channel habitat for juvenile rearing.

Pools would be excavated and wood added to one other existing side channel to provide deep, complex


pools in off-channel habitat. There is no numeric target cited in literature for desired off-channel habitat

quantities, but adding a ½ mile of off-channel habitat more than doubles the amount of habitat for this

reach. The desired condition is to create more off-channel and side channel habitat near spawning reaches to

provide high quality summer and overwintering habitat for juvenile salmonids. Doubling the amount of

quality, off-channel habitat would be a long-term moderately beneficial effect to the off-channel habitat

indicator.


Potential short-term negative impacts to the sediment indicator could result from this project. Placement of

dewatering structures (large sandbags), excavating into the riverbanks and riverbed and placement of large

wood would result in short-term sediment increases. Instream work scheduled for this project would take

place during the July 1 to 31-work window. Typical flows present in the Chewuch River during this time

can be high, as this period is on the descending limb of peak flow runoff. Flows would not be at their lowest

and some turbidity downstream is expected. Following applicable design criteria and Best Management

Practices (BMP), the turbidity downstream of the site is expected to only be measurable for up to 100 feet

downstream and for a period of no more than one hour following construction. Isolating the work area and

dewatering the site would limit sediment deposition effects on site and downstream. Deposited sediment

effects are not expected to be measurable to any spawning habitat below the sites. The effects to the current

stream sediment levels would be a short-term, minor adverse effect. Fine sediment levels would quickly

return to the existing condition and, in the long-term, the high quality condition would remain.


Due to the presence of spring Chinook, steelhead, and possibly bull trout in the river while heavy equipment

operations would be occurring, the project may result in some physical harm or acute mortality to a few

individuals. To minimize direct effects to fish, the work area would be isolated and fish would be removed,

but during this process, direct effects to juveniles, sub-adults, and adults could occur. Fish within the area

would be displaced during this process to an area where they may be more vulnerable to predators. Adult

fish are few in number and they would likely move out of the area and be unharmed. Juveniles are the

mostly likely life stage to be impacted because there are more of them and they do not swim as fast. The

project fish biologist estimates up to 100 juveniles would be disturbed across the entire project area and less

than five would be harmed or killed.

Some temporary degradation of habitat would occur due to potential bank alteration, sediment delivery,

reduction in riparian vegetation, and increases in nutrients in project area streams. This would disrupt

normal feeding and hiding behavior that would displace fish during this process to areas where they may be

more vulnerable to predators.

The long-term effects to fisheries habitat would be an increase in fish habitat complexity. Adding logjams

would increase the frequency from 0.7 jams/mile to 6.2 jams/mile, which would substantially increase fish

cover and promote pool formation. The number of total pools and deep, complex pools would increase by

58-86 percent. The amount of off-channel habitat features would double in size. Project reach sediment

levels would have a short-term, increase, but would remain principally the same quality in the long-term

(Figure 32). Increasing fish habitat complexity with more off-channel habitat, wood cover, and pool habitat

would be a long-term moderately beneficial effect to the Outstandingly Remarkable Fishery Value/ESA

Fish Species.

Habitat qualities for endangered Chinook and threatened steelhead would improve substantially within this

reach. Increased wood cover and deep, complex pools would improve juvenile rearing and adult holding

habitat. The capacity of the Chewuch River to produce smolts and sustain a population of Chinook salmon


and steelhead would increase. Improvements to pool habitat is expected to be long-term because placed

wood is expected to remain in channel for decades due to the stable flow regime of the river and the stable

designs being proposed.

Figure 32: Estimates of Pool Habitat and Increases of Pool Area with Proposed Addition of Large Wood into the

Upper Chewuch River.

Habitat Indicator Current Conditions Post Project Conditions Change in Condition

Total Pools/mile 6.7 – 9.5 12.5 - 15.3 +58 - 86%

Deep Complex Pools/mile 5.8 – 7.5 8.0 - 9.7 +30 - 38%

Log Jam/mile 0.7 6.9 +88.5%

Off-Channel Habitat

4 existing habitat

features 0.4 miles in

total length

1 new habitat feature 0.5 mile

long with full access and one

existing feature improved.

Off-channel habitat length is

doubled within this reach,

with in natural areas where

these elements would occur.

Sediment Properly Functioning Properly Functioning No Change

The Chewuch River would move towards being an outstandingly remarkable fishery value and towards

functioning properly. This would move the river towards meeting the eligibility criteria for a Wild and

Scenic River designation.



The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to aquatic resources for the indicators of large

wood, pools, and off-channel habitat are the stream reach where the project is taking place. Past projects

such as riparian harvest, road building, and channel cleaning have altered the stream reach but they are

described in the existing condition.

The resource indicator for sediment would overlap with grazing impacts, the road network, and recreation.

The outstanding remarkable value for fisheries would be cumulatively impacted by past large wood projects

in the Chewuch River.

The temporal boundaries for the analysis of cumulative effects include similar actions to the spatial

boundaries. The indicators of large wood, pools, and off-channel habitat would not overlap in time with any

other planned activity. The indicator for sediment would overlap in time with grazing, recreation, and the

transportation network. The outstanding remarkable value for fisheries would be cumulatively impacted by

past large wood projects in the Chewuch River. The temporal scale for cumulative effects on water quality,

riparian function, and watershed condition is 10 years.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects

Analysis


There are no projects in the area that would have cumulative impacts upon this indicator.







The overlap with grazing impacts, the road network, future timber harvest, and recreation would have slight

cumulative impact upon sediment but the effects would not be measurable.

Figure 33: Sediment Cumulative Effects

Project

Overlap

In Time

Space

Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Grazing, Recreation,

Transportation Network Yes Yes No

Grazing, recreational activities including camping, floating, hiking

etc., as well as recreational use of the transportation network would

still occur. These activities are all capable of producing sediment.

There would be an overlap in timing of these activities with Chewuch

large wood additions. During implementation of the project,

suspended sediment would be measurable during construction of the

structures in the immediate vicinity of the project. The additional

sediment production would be of a short duration, minimal, and

decrease to background upon cessation of the implementation work

due to mitigation measures and design criteria. There would be no

measurable cumulative impact upon sediment from interacting with grazing, recreation, or the transportation network.

Resource Indicator: Outstandingly Remarkable Fishery Value/ESA Fisheries

This project with past large wood projects in the Chewuch River would enhance fish habitat and have a

beneficial impact on the outstandingly remarkable value for fisheries.

Figure 34: Fishery Value Cumulative Effects

Project

Overlap

In Time

Space

Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Scenic River

Outstandingly

Remarkable Fishery

Value (ORV)/ESA

Fisheries

Yes Yes Yes

Past projects have added large wood and off-channel habitat to stream

reaches below the project area on private, state, and National Forest

System lands. The area is within an eligible river segment for potential

scenic classification under the Wild and Scenic River Act and one of

the ORVs making it eligible is its high fisheries value. The project

would have a measurable cumulative impact upon fisheries and the

impact would be primarily beneficial. There may also be additional

large wood projects in the future but none has been identified to date.

All of these treatments are designed to benefit fish habitat, the purpose

and need of these projects is to increase suitable habitat for ESA listed

fish species. When analyzed cumulatively the past, current, and

possibly future large wood projects would have a beneficial cumulative

impact upon this ORV.

3.3.4 Conclusion

The proposed action would have a May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect to chinook, steelhead, and bull

trout species and their critical habitat. Adverse impacts would be temporary and negligible to minor in

consequence. The project would be a long-term, moderately beneficial change for ESA fish species. This

project would contribute towards the recovery of these species across the Upper Columbia River Basin.



Scenic River Outstanding Remarkable Values (Fishery Value)

Riparian vegetation and floodplain habitat along the Chewuch River would be temporarily disturbed during

project construction and until it stabilizes and re-vegetation occurs, which would be a few years. During

that time, these values would be slightly disturbed. The riparian area and floodplain would be rehabilitated

with native vegetation and stabilized. After a few years, the area would return to and most likely improve

over the current condition and represent quality habitat.

ESA Fish Species and Critical Habitat Effect Determination

Due to the presence of spring Chinook, steelhead, and possibly bull trout in the river while heavy equipment

operations would be occurring, the project would affect these species temporarily and may result in “take”

of the species. As a result, the project is considered “likely to adversely affect” spring Chinook, steelhead,

and bull trout for the short term. The project would result in a temporary “may affect, likely to adversely

affect” designated critical habitat for these species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

NOAA Fisheries was completed under ARBO II.

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans

The project site is located on the boundary of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and PACFISH

management areas, which is the Chewuch River. This project conforms to the Okanogan Forest Plan (the

Forest Plan), as amended by the Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies

for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of

California (PACFISH, USDA and USDI 1995). On the west side of the river, the project is within a Key

Watershed under the NWFP. On the east side of the river, the project is within a Key Watershed under

PACFISH. The project is consistent with standards and guidelines of these management plans.


The project area lies within a riparian area on land designated as Matrix on the west side of the river and

roaded natural recreation and scenic viewing on the east side of the river. The Plan contains a number of

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) that pertain to fisheries including fish habitat rehabilitation

(page 4-31). Specific applicable S&Gs considered for plan conformance are listed below:

S&G 3-1 - Maintain or enhance biological, chemical, and physical qualities of Forest fish habitats.

The project is specifically intended to enhance the physical qualities of the project reach by increasing

habitat complexity, pool habitat, cover habitat, and off-channel refuge habitat for all life stages of fish. This

would benefit the biological value of the fishery resource.

S&G 3-2 - Rehabilitate fish habitats where past management activities have adversely affected their

ability to support fish populations.

Past wood removal, riparian logging, and road construction has reduced the amount of instream wood and

natural wood recruitment, thereby reducing habitat quality in the Chewuch River. The project is specifically

intended to move habitat conditions towards more natural desired conditions. Once complete, the project

reach would support greater fish production.

S&G 3-3 - Sediment in fishery streams shall be maintained at levels low enough to support good

reproductive success of fish populations as well as adequate instream food production by indigenous

aquatic communities to support those populations.


Existing fine sediment levels in the Chewuch River are functioning properly. Design criteria and mitigation

measures such as isolating the work sites would minimize short-term sediment impacts. Fine sediment

levels are expected to remain in good condition.

S&G 3-4 - Manage streams for high quality pool habitat consistent with the potential for the stream

to provide it through natural or artificial means.

The project is specifically intended to increase quality pool habitat to improve juvenile rearing and adult

fish holding habitat.

S&G 3-5 - Provide an average of at least 20 pieces of large wood per 1,000 lineal feet of stream

channel on fish bearing streams to provide for aquatic needs.

The project is specifically intended to increase large wood quantities in the river and would move habitat

conditions towards meeting this standard.

Northwest Forest Plan

The project area lies within a Riparian Reserve on land designated as Matrix. The Lower Chewuch River

Watershed is designated as a Key Watershed, which are identified as priority areas for restoration. Specific

applicable S&Gs considered for plan conformance are listed below:

The project is specifically intended to restore aquatic habitat complexity.

WR-1 - Design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that promotes long-term

ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserves the genetic integrity of native species, and attains

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

The project is specifically intended to enhance aquatic habitat by increasing habitat complexity, pool

habitat, cover habitat, and off-channel refuge habitat for all life stages of fish. This would increase aquatic

habitat resilience to natural and human caused disturbances, improve production of native fish species, and

move habitat conditions towards desired aquatic and riparian conditions, which are goals of the Aquatic

Conservation Strategy.

FW-1 - Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement activities in a

manner that contributes to the attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

See above consistency statement for Northwest Forest Plan WR-1.

PACFISH

The project area lies within a RHCA and a designated Key Watershed. Fisheries priority within these

watersheds is to restore habitat for ESA listed fish species. Specific applicable S&Gs considered for plan

conformance are listed below:

WR-1 - Design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that promotes the long-

term ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserves the genetic integrity of native species, and

contributes to attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

The project is specifically intended to enhance aquatic habitat by increasing habitat complexity, pool

habitat, cover habitat, and off-channel refuge habitat for all life stages of fish. This would increase aquatic

habitat resilience to natural and human caused disturbances, improve production of native fish species, and

move habitat conditions towards desired aquatic and riparian conditions.


FW-1 - Design and implement fish and wildlife habit restoration and enhancement actions in a

manner that contributes to attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives.

See above consistency statement for PACFISH WR-1.

3.3.6 Summary

The project would increase the large wood level, total pool and quality pool habitat frequencies, and would

double the amount of off-channel habitat. In the short-term, this project would disturb the river channel,

riverbanks, and riparian vegetation. Design criteria and mitigation measures would minimize these effects.

In the long-term, this effort would increase aquatic habitat complexity and improve fish habitat conditions.

Fish survival and localized production is expected to increase, thereby improving the biological resource

condition and enhancing the outstandingly remarkable fisheries value. All applicable aquatic and riparian

standards and guides would be met with the project design features.

Due to the presence of spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, and possibly bull trout in the river while heavy

equipment operations would be occurring, the project would affect these species temporarily and may result

in “take” of these species. As a result, the project “may affect, likely to adversely affect” spring Chinook,

steelhead, and bull trout for the short-term. The project would result in a temporary “may affect, likely to

adversely affect” designated critical habitat for these species. The impacts would be temporary and

negligible to minor in consequence. The project would be a long-term, moderately beneficial change for

ESA fish species and their designated critical habitat within the project area. This project would contribute

towards the recovery of these species across the Upper Columbia River Basin.

Degree to Which the Purpose and Need for Action is Met

The primary purpose and need for the project is to increase aquatic habitat diversity within the project area.

The long-term effects of the project to fisheries habitat would be an increase in total pool and depth,

complex pool habitat, log jams/mile, and off-channel habitat, which would successfully meet the need.

Aquatic habitat diversity within the project area would move towards meeting the desired condition, as

defined by (Shull and Butler 2014). The number of logjams/mile would increase to within about 75% of the

desired range. Total pools and deep, complex pools per mile would be adjusted to within about 70 and 80%

of what the desired number is for the Chewuch River. Off-channel habitat would double in size.

Figure 35: Summary Comparison of How the Alternatives Address the Purpose and Need


Indicator Measure Alt 1 Alt 2

Channel


Large Wood Log Jams/mi 0.7 Increase of~6.2

Pools Pools/mi 6.7 – 9.5 Increase of ~5.8

Deep, Complex Pools/mi 5.8 – 7.5 Increase of~2.2

Off-Channel

Habitat Quantity of Habitat

4 off-channel

habitat features 0.4 miles long present

The quality/quantity of

off-channel habitat would double

Maintain Water Quality Sediment NTU No-effect Small temporary

increase, remain same

Scenic River

Outstanding Remarkable

Values/Biological Effect

to Fisheries

Remarkable

Fishery

Value/ESA

Fish Species


At Risk, Properly Functioning Functioning at Risk

Improve toward

Properly Functioning


3.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers (Recreation and Scenery)



Reference information is contained in the full specialist report in the analysis file. Resource indicators and

the measures used for assessing project effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers (Recreation and Scenery) are

described below.

Wild and Scenic River Act Compliance

The proposed action could affect the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” of the Chewuch River, identified

as scenic, wildlife, fish, and recreation. The proposed action would not be designed to interfere with the

free-flowing nature of the river, and is designed to improve the fish value, but could have a direct and

adverse effect on, or diminish the scenic and recreation values, and invade the river. The project may

diminish the scenic value if the constructed features do not mimic natural features in terms of duration of

viewing and frequency, size, shape, and material. The recreational value could be affected if the

constructed structures degrade the scenic setting from the Falls Creek Campground or established dispersed

campsites, or if they pose a safety threat to boaters on the river.

There are approximately 50 established, improved dispersed campsites on the banks of the Chewuch River.

Each has an access route, and most have a fire ring. Several have been improved through a program called

“Respect the River.” These sites have buck and pole fences delineating the spot, and blocking vehicle

access to the riverbank.

The Chewuch River is popular with recreationists, who enjoy camping and picnicking on the riverbanks.

There are some professional or highly skilled people who go down the river in canoes or kayaks, but very

few non-professional river-users use this stretch of river for recreation (MIG, 2014). The constructed

features could pose a danger if people climb on them, or create a hazard to boaters.



Measure

(Quantify if

possible)

Used to address

P/N, or key issue?

Source

(LRMP S/G; law or policy,

BMPs, etc.)?

Wild and Scenic River

Eligibility

Shorelines and

immediate environment

should not show

substantial evidence of human activity.

Evidence of human

activity visible

from the shoreline

and immediate vicinity.

Yes LRMP

Scenery

Scenic Integrity

Objective, Visual

Quality Objective

Yes LRMP

Recreation

Overall changes to

recreation

opportunities.

Yes LRMP

Recreation

Changes in

landscape

character within

view of Falls

Creek Campground

Yes LRMP

Recreation Changes in Yes LRMP


landscape setting

of dispersed

campsite by structure J

Recreation

Changes in

landscape setting

of dispersed

campsite by

structure M

Yes LRMP

Recreation Boater Safety Yes LRMP

Methodology

Wild and Scenic River Outstandingly Remarkable Values

The effects were analyzed following the process described in Appendix C of “Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:

Section 7, October 2004”, U.S. Forest Service. The scenic and recreation outstandingly remarkable values

are detailed in this report using the following analysis methods.

Resource Indicator: Scenery

The scenic quality would be assessed by describing the deviations in landscape character that would be

caused by each structure and the resulting scenic integrity objective.

The analysis area for cumulative effects would be bounded by the reach of the river determined eligible for

Wild and Scenic River designation, under the Scenic classification (Thirtymile Trailhead to the north, and

the National Forest System boundary south of Eightmile Ranch to the south), and the view of the

surrounding landscape. The view from the East and West Chewuch roads (5100000 and 5010000) is also

considered as allocated by the MA-5 prescription as well as all developed and dispersed recreation sites

located within the project area.

Resource Indicator: Recreation

The specific dispersed campsites and developed campgrounds that may be affected would be described and

potential changes to the setting or view from the campsites or campgrounds that could affect their

popularity. Boater safety would be evaluated by considering the design of the constructed features, and

how safety was addressed.

The analysis area for cumulative effects would be bounded by the reach of the river determined eligible for

potential Wild and Scenic River designation, under the Scenic classification (Thirtymile Trailhead to the

north, and the National Forest System boundary south of Eightmile Ranch to the south), and the view of the

surrounding landscape.


The Okanogan Forest Plan determined the Chewuch River was within an eligible river segment for potential

scenic classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It is classified thus from the Thirtymile

Trailhead near the boundary of the Pasayten Wilderness to the National Forest System land boundary south

of Eightmile Ranch. The outstandingly remarkable values for the river are scenic, wildlife, fish, and

recreation. Scenery and recreation are addressed in more detail below.


Resource Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition


Element (Quantify if possible) (Quantify if possible) (Alternative 1)

Wild and

Scenic River Eligibility

Shorelines and

immediate

environment should

not show substantial

evidence of human activity.

Evidence of human

activity visible from the

shoreline and immediate vicinity.

Three developed campgrounds, dispersed

campsites, and some road segments are visible from

the river. Additionally, fish habitat improvement

structures constructed in 2011 and 2013 are visible,

although only 2 cause noticeable deviations from the undeveloped landscape character.

Scenery

Scenic Integrity

Objective, Visual Quality Objective

The current Scenic integrity objective is High, and

Visual Quality Objective meets Retention overall.

One fish habitat structure constructed in 2013 has a

Scenic integrity objective of Low and a Visual

Quality Objective of Modification. Another 2013

structure has a Scenic integrity objective of

Moderate and a Visual Quality Objective of Partial

Retention.

Recreation

Overall changes to

recreation

opportunities.

Area is popular for camping in developed

campgrounds and dispersed campsites, and

boating/rafting.

Recreation

Changes in landscape

setting of dispersed camp site by structure J

Site is popular because of the proximity to river,

flat ground, sandy swimming beach, and large trees.

Recreation


setting of dispersed campsite by structure M

Site is popular because of proximity to river, flat

ground, isolated location,

Recreation Boater Safety

People boat or raft along the river. Existing

logjams are potential risks to boaters, especially during high water when most of the boating occurs.

Resource Indicator: Scenic Quality

The Scenery Management System (SMS), as detailed in Agriculture Handbook Number 701, “Landscape

Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management” (USDA Forest Service, 1995) established the method

used in this analysis to evaluate the impacts of the proposed action on the scenic quality of the project area.

Scenic quality is an important amenity in our lives. Research has shown that high-quality scenery, especially

related to natural-appearing forests, enhances people’s lives and benefits society. The Landscape Character

and Visual Sensitivity of the project area are described, and Scenic Integrity of each site is described.

Landscape Character and Visual Sensitivity

People have been drawn to the Chewuch River valley for decades because of its scenery, and the abundant

recreation opportunities there. The existing landscape character of the Chewuch River corridor is forested

with some variation in texture created by varying thickness of the trees. The East and West Chewuch roads

(5100000 and 5010000) follow the river on either side from the Thirtymile Trailhead to the Forest

Boundary. The views from the river are of forests broken up by natural and natural-appearing openings that

give views to the surrounding ridgelines and the Chewuch River. The forests follow the land up to the

surrounding ridgelines, with natural openings becoming more frequent near the ridgetops, with the forest

texture becoming finer because of the more distant view. Most of the river has thick riverside vegetation.

Breaks in this vegetation open views into the surrounding forests and the ridgelines and mountains in the

background. Naturally occurring log jams and downed trees in the river provide variety, along with rapids

separated by deeper pools. The riverbanks vary in height from areas that are flat with oxbow channels and

sand bars to areas where the riverbank extends up to 10 feet above the water level, becoming more

pronounced when the water flow is low.


The Chewuch River flows through forested land largely unaltered by human activities, and the overall

undeveloped view is the basis for the scenic outstanding remarkable value identified in the eligibility

determination. There are sections where roads are close to and visible from the river. River Mile 15.5 to 20

includes the Camp Four and Chewuch Developed Campgrounds, a summer home tract, popular dispersed

campsites, and short road segments within the seen area. Overall, the landscape character is natural

appearing and undeveloped as viewed from the Chewuch River corridor.

Scenic Integrity

The Scenic integrity objective for the project area is High, as specified with the LRMP Visual Quality

Objective of foreground retention. A High scenic integrity is defined in the Landscape Aesthetics

Handbook (USDA FS, 1995) as follows:

High scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact.

Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the

landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident (See project files for

definitions of these terms).

The following figure shows the measurements used to evaluate the impact of a structure on the visual

quality in terms of deviation in landscape character.

Figure 38: Measurements of Deviations in Landscape Character

Deviations in

Landscape Character

Measurement Low Impact

Moderate Impact

High Impact

Form: Most dominant element

Type of structure:

engineered log jam,

backwater enhancement

Cover enhancement:

Height of structure. At water surface,

mostly flush with

ground, sand bars, and islands.

In scale with existing bank height.

Taller than existing bank height.

Percentage of channel

spanned.

Less than 10%. 11% to 25%. Over 25%.

Line: Second most

dominant element

Number of layers of

horizontal parallel logs.

Two or less Three to four Five or more

Orientation of logs

relative to water flow,

orientation of root wads facing upstream.

Majority of logs are

parallel to water flow.

Most root wads face upstream.

Fewer than 25% of the

logs are perpendicular to

water flow. Roughly,

25% of root wads face

perpendicular to flow or downstream.

Over 25% of logs are

perpendicular to water

flow. Over 25% of

root wads face

perpendicular to flow or downstream.

Number of upright

piers

None One to four Five or more

Color & Texture Incorporation of trees

with limbs attached

and/or brush.

Incorporation of

boulders.

Strong incorporation

of limbs and brush.

Moderate incorporation

of limbs and brush.

Little or no

incorporation of limbs and brush.

Pattern Shape Random appearing Somewhat angular Strongly angular

Geometric Pattern No noticeable

geometric pattern.

Amount of geometric

pattern limited by size of

structure or lack of obvious angles.

Repeating, strong

geometric pattern with

parallel lines and obvious angles.

Visibility from

Chewuch River or

Amount of existing

vegetation screening

Enhancement

structure is screened

Enhancement structure is

partially screened by

Enhancement structure

is not screened by


East and West

Chewuch roads

(5100000 and 5010000)

and placement along river corridor

by existing vegetation

or islands and blends

in. Not noticeable.

existing vegetation and is moderately noticeable.

existing vegetation and is highly visible.

Visibility from

recreation sites

Amount of time

structure is viewed

Structure not visible

from developed or

dispersed campsites.

Only view would be

passing by in a boat.

Structure is visible from

an established dispersed campsite.

Structure is visible

from a developed campsite.

The Forest Service and Yakama Nation have implemented previous projects that constructed fish habitat

improvement structures in the Chewuch River. Overall, the previously constructed structures meet the High

scenic integrity objective, and are not having a direct impact on the scenic “Outstandingly Remarkable

Value” of the Chewuch River. Maps showing the location of structures completed in the prior stages are

available in project files.

The restoration project completed in 2012 covered the stretch of the Chewuch River between River Miles

9.56 and 13. The installed structures meet the High scenic integrity objective because their form, line,

color, texture, and pattern blend with the surrounding landscape and mimic naturally occurring features

along the riverbank. They are not negatively affecting the “Outstanding Remarkable Value” of scenery, and

comply with the LRMP standard and guideline of visual quality objective of retention. The following two

photographs (Figures 39 and 40) show two of the structures in the reach, located along the banks by the

Eightmile Ranch.

Figure 39: Photograph of constructed log structures on the south end of Eightmile Ranch riverfront. The vertical members on the

right-hand side of the photo meet scenic quality objectives because of there are only two, and they have different heights and angles.

Figure 40. Photograph looking upstream at the constructed log structures on the south end of Eightmile Ranch

riverfront.


Another phase of the fish habitat restoration project was completed in 2013. Most of the structures have a

High scenic integrity objective because they blend with the surroundings in terms of form, line, color,

texture, and pattern.

Even though the 2013 project is meeting the visual quality objectives overall, two the structures are having

a negative impact on the scenic “Outstandingly Remarkable Value”. Structure 13B (Figure 41) is a

backwater enhancement structure that has created important cover habitat for aquatic species, thus

improving the fish habitat outstandingly remarkable value, but is having a direct and negative impact on the

scenic outstandingly remarkable value. The following picture shows the structure from the river side.

Figure 41: View of Structure 13B from the Chewuch River

This structure has a scenic integrity objective of Very Low because the size of the structure is out of scale,

the lines in the structure (both horizontal and vertical) are strongly parallel, and the pattern is very angular

and geometric.

The structure also does not comply with Forest Plan standard and guideline MA5-8A, since it does not meet

the visual quality retention standard. The following picture (Figure 42) shows the view of the structure

from the East Chewuch road.

Figure 42: View of Structure 13B from the East Chewuch Road.

The structure does not meet Retention, and would be considered an unacceptable modification at this time.

As vegetation regrows and the logs weather, it may meet the Very Low to Low end of Modification. It does

not mimic natural appearing logjams in overall size and shape. The placement of logs dominates and does

not reflect natural appearing deposits. Vertical pillars appear uniform in size and height, and do not appear

naturally random, but reflect an extreme geometric and linear pattern.


The structure is negatively affecting recreation at the dispersed recreation site along the river, and creating a

potential hazard to people who may climb on the structure. The following picture (Figure 43) shows the

structure from the bottom of a user-created trail leading to the backwater area and riverside gravel bar.

Figure 43: View of Structure 13B from the user-created trail leading to the backwater area.

The uniform, geometric pattern of the structure is easily reached from the banks of the river, and creates a

tempting climbing structure. The structure has no elements to reduce hazards to people – such as flattened

tops on the logs, railings, or abutments.

Structure 13C (Figure 44) is also having a direct and negative impact on the scenic value of the river,

however since it is only viewed by people passing by in a boat, the overall impact is diminished. The

following photo shows the structure from the river side.

Figure 44. View of Structure 13C from the river

The vertical pillars in the structure are dominating due to consistent height and even row appearance. The

blunt ends of the logs are perpendicular to the flow of the river and extend into the waterway. Since much

of this structure extends into the water, future vegetation growth would not substantially reduce the visual

impact. The structure would likely blend into the surroundings more over time as the logs weather, and the

structure catches debris and logs, somewhat hiding the parallel pattern of the upright piers.



The Chewuch River is a popular recreation destination. The two types of recreation that could be impacted

from the proposed action are camping and boating.

The Chewuch Campground is within the project area. This sixteen-site campground sits on the bank of the

Chewuch River, with river access. The campground is popular because it has low to moderate use, open

sites and river access. The campground is set in a stand of large trees that provide welcome shade in the hot

summer months. It is also located relatively close to the town of Winthrop. The campground is full most

weekends and holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day, and approximately 75% full on weekdays.

The site for Structure N is located across and south from the campground, on the other side of the river.

Some of the people who camp in the project area prefer to not stay in one of the developed campgrounds,

but instead pull off one of the roads and set up camp among the trees. Dispersed camping is especially

popular during the general firearm season in October, and with large groups looking for a place where

everyone can camp together. Most of these campers stay in some sort of recreational vehicle, although

some stay in tents.

Three of the proposed structures are near established dispersed campsites. Structures J, M, and U are by

well-developed sites popular throughout the summer. The sites sit next to the river; have fire rings and buck

and pole fencing to keep vehicles away from the river. They are popular because of the location on the

river’s edge, swimming access, flat ground, and large trees providing shade.

A relatively low number of people boat or raft down the Chewuch River each year. Log jams can be

dangerous to boaters if the boaters become caught in or under a structure. The structures completed in the

previous projects were designed to reduce the risk to boaters. “Bumper logs” were placed along the outer

edge of most of the structures. If a boat or raft were to hit one of the structures, it would bump off this log

and away from the structure, or simply float along the log until downstream of the structure.

A company called MIG conducted a Recreation and Large Wood Assessment in 2013 on Chewuch River

Mile 0 - 21. At low flow (probably considered the most dangerous, 1,020 cfs) R.M. 15 – 20 had the

following large wood barriers: 8 sweeper logs, 3 Type C, 2 Type D, 3 Type E, and 1 Type F barriers.

Types A and B were not included since consequences to rafters and kayakers are generally low from these

type of barriers. A Type C: Routine navigation allows a floater to avoid contacting a Type C, but contact

could occur if a floater is inattentive or unskilled. A Type D: Boaters would need to engage in active

navigation (at least one substantial potential maneuver to avoid contact). Routine navigation may not be

sufficient to avoid the barrier. A Type E: A boatable channel may exist, but substantial active and accurate

navigation is likely needed to avoid contact. Type F: portage required.

Most of the river use occurs in the summer during low water flow and is short-distance inner-tubers. The

river can be dangerous to use by rafters and kayakers due to cold water temperatures, rapidly moving water

during high flows, and low flow exposing more dangerous barriers. Low flows and warm air temperatures

increase the amount of inner tube use on the river, however the flow is generally too low for canoes,

kayaks, and rafts later in the year. Most inner tube users drift in the river for approximately 100 yards then

get out of the river, or use the tubes to sun bathe (MIG, 2014). Observed use was very low; boating/floating

activity was observed on only five of the 15 days sampled. Most of this activity was characterized as short-

distance floating and tubing. No rafters or kayakers were witnessed on-the-water; one was observed on

land. All activity observed occurred below Memorial Campground near R.M. 9.


The limited scope and timeframe of this study and a previous study prevented them from being used as a

statistically valid estimate of use, however it does demonstrate that river use is low. Jonason (2012)

concluded that the factors preventing more recreation use on the section below R.M. 15.5 included:

Very low water conditions;

Technical and tight rocky rapids;

Channels without enough water to negotiate through;

Cold water temperatures; and

A general lack of experience to navigate this style river.

In early spring of 2013, MIG administered an online questionnaire targeting Chewuch River boaters who

had paddled or floated the Chewuch River within the most recent two-year period. 34 people with

experience recreating on the Chewuch River completed the questionnaire.



Alternative 1 would not change the current condition of the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” along this

reach of the Chewuch River. The scenic quality would not be changed, and the shoreline, whether viewed

from a camp site or a boat would remain largely undeveloped, with the existing exceptions of developed

campgrounds and roads that can be seen from the river. There would be no new structures posing a

potential danger to boaters, or altering the setting of dispersed campsite or developed campgrounds.



Resource

Element

Resource Indicator


Measure (Quantify if

possible) Alternative 2

Wild and

Scenic River Eligibility

Scenery

Scenic Integrity

Objective, Visual Quality Objective

High Scenic Integrity Objective, Retention Visual Quality

Objective

Recreation

Overall changes to

recreation

opportunities.

No changes to most recreation activities along the river.

Outstanding opportunities would still dominate, and

popularity of the area would not decrease.

Recreation


character within view of dispersed sites by C.

One structure would moderately alter the view of the

riverbank upstream from popular dispersed site. Would not change the popularity of the campground.

Recreation


setting of dispersed

campsite by structure J

and M.

No apparent change in setting. The structure would appear

natural and not interfere with usefulness of site. There

would be a short–term impact to the use of the site, which

would be closed during construction. Site restoration

mitigation measures would return the site to the original condition, with no long-term impact on popularity or use.

Recreation


setting of dispersed

campsite by structure

U.

The structure would be a dominant feature in downriver

view from the campsite. It would be an obstacle to boaters

launching from the site. There would be a short–term impact

to the use of the site, which would be closed during

construction. Site restoration mitigation measures would

return the site to the original condition, with no long-term impact on popularity or use.

Recreation Boater Safety All structures designed to minimize risk to boaters.



Overall, Alternative 2 would meet the High scenic integrity objective, and Retention visual quality

objective. Approximately 28 structures would be constructed within the 4½-mile stretch of the Chewuch

River. The riverbanks would still appear undeveloped, although structures would be noticeable constructed

features, slightly deviating from the undeveloped landscape character. Figure 46 details each structure,

from where the structure would be viewed, deviations from landscape character, and scenic quality

objective of each structure.


Alternative 2 would change a portion of the landscape viewed from the viewpoints along the road and one

established dispersed campsite. Structure C would be located up river from the dispersed site and visible

from the river where people spend time. This would not change the elements of the setting of the site that

make it popular – direct river access, shallow water, swimming beach, large trees, and relatively close

proximity to Winthrop. People would be able to see the structure from the beach and river, and it would

look like an obviously constructed structure because of its height, perpendicular orientation of the logs to

the water flow, and angular shape. The structure would not dominate the view, however, and would be

subordinate to the overall setting. Short-term noise disturbance from work on site N could occur to visitors

at Chewuch Campground. Short-term displacement of visitors wanting to use dispersed sites is likely to

occur as the sites may be temporarily closed during construction. Expected time is one month to six weeks,

and with many other sites open visitors are likely to find a different spot.

Figure 46: Each Structure, from Where the Structure Would be Viewed, Deviations from Landscape Character, and

Scenic Quality Objective of Each Structure.

Type of

Structure

Site

Location

Existing Condition Viewing

Location

and

Duration

Deviation in Landscape

Character

Scenic Integrity

Objective (SIO)

Sites A, C

& U

Structures

(bank

margin log

jam, apex

jams, gravel

bar, whole

tree wood)

Boaters

passing by

on the

river

would see

the

structures.

Some

would be

seen from

East or

West

Chewuch

Roads or

some

dispersed

sites

within site

distance.

Form: Moderate Impact; three

stacked logs high but in scale

with existing bank.

Line: Moderate Impact; three

horizontal parallel layers, no

upright piers, most logs

perpendicular to water flow,

over half of the root wads face

upstream, bumper logs would

be visible and parallel to water flow.

Color and Texture: Low

Impact; color would blend

with surrounding setting, root

wads and tree limbs would add texture

Pattern: Moderate Impact;

structures would be somewhat

angular, but geometric pattern

would be limited due to limited size.

Meets High

SIO, Retention

VQO.

Despite the

moderate

deviation from

some

components of

landscape

character, the

structures would

be viewed for

short periods as

boaters pass by,

and would be in

scale with the

bank height.


Type of

Structure

Site

Location

Existing Condition Viewing

Location

and

Duration

Deviation in Landscape

Character

Scenic Integrity

Objective (SIO)

Sites B and

V

Boaters

passing by

on the

river

would see

structure.

Form: Moderate Impact; large

stacked logs at site B, but in scale with existing bank.

Line: Moderate Impact;

horizontal parallel layers,

upright piers mixed and

buried, most logs

perpendicular to water flow,

over half of the root wads face

upstream, bumper logs would

be visible and parallel to

water flow.

Color and Texture: Low

Impact; color would blend

with surrounding settings, root

wads and tree limbs would

add texture

Pattern: Moderate Impact;

structures would be somewhat

angular, but geometric pattern

would be limited due to limited size.

Meets High

SIO, Retention

VQO.

Despite the

moderate

deviation from

some

components of

the landscape

character, the

structures would

be viewed for

short periods as

boaters pass by,

and would be in

scale with the bank height.

All structures would be designed and constructed to minimize risk to boaters, with bumper logs installed to

reduce the chance of people becoming caught in or under the structures.



The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to the outstandingly remarkable values of the

Chewuch River are the river span from the Thirtymile Trailhead to the National Forest System Boundary

south of the Eightmile Ranch. This section of river was found eligible for potential Wild and Scenic River

designation under the Scenic classification.

The temporal boundary is from the time of construction of the West and East Chewuch Roads and the Falls

Creek Campground, until sometime in the future when these constructed features are no longer maintained

or evident.


Figure 47: Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects

Resource

Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 2 (Units)

Past, Present,

and Future

Actions (Units)

Cumulative Effects (Units)

Wild and

Scenic

River Eligibility

Scenery

Scenic

Integrity

Objective,


High Scenic Integrity

Objective, Retention

Visual Quality

Objective overall,

however 2 structures

would not meet visual

quality objectives.

Shoreline would

Past - 2

structures

previously built

do not meet

visual quality

objectives.

Future – design

criteria would

Some degradation of scenic

quality, with 2 structures

previously built between R.M.

9.5 - 15.5 that do not meet

visual quality objective.

Shoreline would appear more

developed, but would not have

a direct and adverse impact on


appear more

developed near these

structures; however,

they would be spaced

far enough apart to

minimize visual

impact.

limit impacts

from new built

features.

the scenic outstandingly

remarkable value of the

Chewuch River because they

would not be clumped together,

and the majority of the

shoreline would appear

unaltered.

Recreation

Overall

changes to

recreation

opportunities.

No changes to most

recreation activities

along the river.

Outstanding recreation

opportunities would

still dominate, and


Overall, no

long-term

changes to

recreation

activities or opportunities.

No cumulative effect.

Recreation

Changes in

landscape

character

within view of dispersed sites

One structure would

moderately alter view

of the riverbank

upstream from a

dispersed site. Would

not change the

popularity of the

campground.

No effect. No cumulative effect.

Boater Safety

All structures designed

to minimize risk to boaters

There would be

an increase in

the number of

structures in and

along the river

that could pose a

hazard to boaters.

The risk to boaters would be

increased over current

condition, but structural

components, namely bumper

logs, would minimize risk.


Figure 48: Scenic Quality Cumulative Effects

Project Overlap In

Time Space

Measurable Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Fish habitat structure construction in Chewuch River between R.M. 15.5 - 20.

Yes Yes Yes

Some degradation of scenic quality, due to the number of structures and the inherent change in adding additional structures to the river. The shoreline would appear more developed in this stretch, but would not have a direct and adverse impact on the overall scenic outstandingly remarkable value of the Chewuch River because new features would not be clumped together, and the majority of the shoreline would appear unaltered.

Resource Indicator: Boater Safety

Figure 49: Boater Safety Cumulative Effects

Project Overlap In

Time Space

Measurable Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Fish habitat structure construction in Chewuch River between river miles 15.5 and 20.

Yes Yes Yes The risk to boaters would be increased over the current condition, but structural components, namely bumper logs, would minimize risk.



Public Safety

Alternative 2 would increase the risk for boaters in the Chewuch River because of the potential for boaters

to become caught on or pulled under the constructed structures. The risk would be minimized by placing

bumper logs along the structures most likely to pose a risk. The logs would help bump people away from

the structure, or serve as a barrier between the boat and structure.

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility (see project files for complete analysis)

This analysis follows the process used to determine if the proposed activity would have a direct and adverse

impact on the free-flowing nature of the river and it has identified “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” but

only includes the portions specifically related to Scenic and Recreation.

How would the proposed activity directly alter within-channel conditions?

Alterations to within-channel conditions would be minimal. The constructed structures would result in

additional large woody debris (anchored to the streambanks, anchored to apexes) within the channel,

however the constructed structures are not designed to divert or obstruct the existing free-flowing nature of

the river. They would not alter channel geometry, slope, or form. The bank structures would be designed

to shed floating logs by placement of “bumper logs” at the upstream end of the structures. There is no

guarantee that this would prevent all potential capture of natural logs, so there would be a possibility of

channel-spanning logs being established due to the structures, though that possibility is remote. In the

unlikely event that channel-spanning logs were collected on the structures, it would directly alter the

navigation of the river by people in canoes, kayaks, or rafts. People would need to exit the river, walk

along the riverbank around the channel-spanning logs, and re-enter the river on the down-river side of the

blockage. These bumper logs would push the floating logs away from the structure, back into the fast

moving water in the center of the river. The apex jams should capture a variety of size classes of material

and retain it in the jam.

How would the proposed activity directly alter upland conditions?

The proposed action would slightly alter upland conditions near the constructed structures. The structures

would be visible from the river. By following the design criteria, the constructed structures would appear as

natural logjams. Riverside vegetation would be removed or crushed in isolated spots during construction,

but it would re-grow to the existing condition within approximately 2 to 3 years.

Five of the constructed structures would be located near established developed or dispersed campsites. Two

of those campsites would be used as staging areas during construction. The sites would be closed during

construction, making them unavailable for 4 – 6 weeks/year. There are ample established dispersed

campsites along the river, so it is unlikely that anyone wanting to use those sites would not be able to find

an additional site. The site would be restored after construction, so there would be no lasting modification

of the campsite. The proximity of the constructed feature to a campsite would change the view from the

site, but as stated earlier, the design criteria would help the constructed feature appear natural, protecting the

view. There would be a risk of campers or river-users trying to climb on the structure, which could be

hazardous.


Time scale over which steps are likely to occur.

The constructed structures would be designed to last for decades, so their potential effects on river-users

and scenery would be long-term. The potential for the structures to capture and hold channel-spanning logs

could increase slightly over time if the size of the structures increases because of captured logs. The

likelihood of this is low however, because of the bumper-log design. Given the small number of people

boating or rafting the river, the overall effect to recreation would be slight. The impacts to the dispersed

campsites would be of short duration, with the sites closed during construction, and then fully recovering

within 2 to 3 years. Impacts to scenery along the river would likely diminish over time as the structures

weather and collect small debris such as branches, small logs, and leaves. This would make them look

more natural over time.

Project analysis and management goals.

This project would be consistent with the management goals, and standards and guidelines from the

Okanogan Forest Plan. Considering the potential effect of the condition to the “Outstandingly Remarkable

Values” of the Chewuch at the time it was determined eligible for potential designation (1989), the project

would not create impoundments. Shorelines and the immediate environment would not show substantial

evidence of human activity. The design criteria would minimize potential impacts to scenery and the

structures would appear natural. The structures would not be concentrated with about 6.7 new

structures/mile, along approximately 4½ miles (R.M. 15.5 - 20). New access routes to reach construction

sites would be revegetate within 2 to 3 years, and would not become permanent roads.

Determination

Based on the documented analysis, this project would not have a direct and adverse impact on the Chewuch

River for classification as an eligible potential Scenic River under the Wild and Scenic River Act. The free-

flowing river conditions and water quality would not be changed. The “Outstandingly Remarkable Values”

would be, for the most part, protected or improved. Changes in the scenic quality would be minor, and

likely not noticeable to most people. Access to and availability of recreation would be affected, in the short

term, at several dispersed recreation sites. River-users could see longer-term impacts if channel-spanning

logs become lodged in the structures. Given the low number of river-users, and the design of the structures

to minimize the potential of floating log capture, impacts to recreation would be slight.

Forest Service Handbook

This project would comply with Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, 82.5.

1. The free-flowing character of the river would not be modified by the construction or development

of stream impoundments, diversions, or other water resources projects;

2. Outstandingly remarkable values of the identified river area would be protected; and

3. Construction of structures to protect and enhance fish habitat would harmonize with the area’s

largely undeveloped character and fully protect identified river values.

Land and Resource Management Plan

The project would comply with all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as described below.

S&G 9-3 The potential scenic classification attributes within a one-fourth mile wild corridor on each

side of the {Chewuch River} shall be protected pending congressional action on river designation.


Overall, the project would meet a High scenic integrity objective, and Retention visual quality objective.

Impacts from temporary access routes should lessen over time when vegetation regrows, in approximately

3-5 years after construction. The structures would meet the High scenic integrity objective and Retention

visual quality objective since the vegetation would blend the structure into the surrounding landscape.

MA5-8A The visual quality objective is retention (the proposed action would occur within the

foreground of the Chewuch River).

Alternative 2 would meet the visual quality objective of retention overall. As described above, temporary

access routes would have a short-term scenic integrity objective of Low, and a visual quality objective of

Modification. When vegetation regrows, in approximately 3-5 years after construction, the structures

would meet the High scenic integrity objective and Retention visual quality objective since the vegetation

would blend the structures into the surrounding landscape.

Appendix G of the Okanogan LRMP discusses Wild and Scenic River management, beginning on page

G-2. Under the Scenic category, it states: “[t]hose rivers of segments of rivers that are free of

impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines undeveloped, but

accessible in places by roads.”

It goes on to list the follow interpretation of the criteria (refer to Appendix G for full text):

River areas shall be free of impoundments.

No impoundments would be constructed.

River area shorelines and the immediate environment should not show substantial evidence of human

activity.

Overall, there would be no substantial evidence of human activity along the shoreline. Structures would

appear natural because of size, placement, and shape. These structures would be subordinate to the

surrounding landscape in the immediate vicinity.

Structures or concentration of structures must be limited to relatively short reaches of the total river

area.

Structures would be spread along approximately 4½ miles of river. The highest concentration would be at

R.M. 16 where four structures plus the channel enhancement wood is clustered together. Other structures

are spread out over the miles with limited concentrations.

Roads may reach the river area and occasionally bridge the river.

No roads, only access trails, or bridges would be constructed.

Required Monitoring

Restoration of campsites near structures would be monitored to ensure compliance with restoration tasks.

Monitoring would be completed during active restoration, or immediately after completion, by the

recreation staff.


3.4.5 Summary

Alternative 2 would protect and maintain the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” of scenery and recreation

for R.M. 15.5 - 20. The river would continue to appear undeveloped and conditions should improve over

time as vegetation regrows on temporary roads and natural material builds on structures. Recreation

opportunities would not be affected, except for short-term closures of the dispersed campsites near

structures J, M, and U. These sites would be closed during construction, but would be restored once

construction is complete. Risk to boaters would be minimized by incorporation of bumper logs to help

deflect boaters away from the structures.

Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues

Figure 50: Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues

Issue Indicator/Measure Alt 1 Alt 2

Structures could

degrade visual quality

and increase

development along river

Scenic integrity

objective and


High Scenic integrity

objective, and Retention Visual Quality Objective

Overall, High Scenic integrity

objective, and Retention Visual Quality Objective.

Structures could affect

recreation by changing

the overall recreation opportunities.

Overall changes to


No changes in overall


No changes to most recreation

activities along the river.

Outstanding recreation opportunities

would still dominate, and the


Structure could change

the landscape

character as seen from

the dispersed camp

site near structure J.

Changes in

landscape setting of

dispersed camp site

by structure J

No changes in

surrounding landscape character.

No apparent change in setting.

Structure would appear natural, and

not interfere with usefulness of site.

There would be a short–term impact

to the use of the site, which would be

closed during construction. Site

restoration mitigation measures

would return site to the original

condition, with no long-term impact on popularity or use.


the landscape


the dispersed camp site near structure M.

Changes in


dispersed camp site by structure M

No changes in






would return the site to the original

condition, with no long-term impact

on popularity or use.


the landscape


the dispersed camp

site near structure U

Changes in


dispersed camp site

by structure U

No changes in






would return the site to the original

condition, with no long-term impact

on popularity or use. The structure may limit or alter access to the river.

Structures could pose

a safety hazard to

boaters if the boaters

became caught on or

pulled under the structures.

Boater Safety No increase in risk to

boaters. All structures designed to minimize

risk to boaters


3.5 Wildlife


Wildlife Considered But Not Analyzed In Detail

Figure 51: Resources Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

Resource Rationale for Dismissing from Further Analysis

American marten, pileated

woodpecker, three-toed

woodpecker, northern spotted

owl and the barred owl (MIS)

These are management indicator species for mature and old growth mixed conifer forest.

The proposed action would not result in the conversion of forest stand types. It would have

no effect on mature and old-growth forest and would not affect the size or health of marten,

pileated woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, and barred owl populations

Lewis’s, pileated, three-toed,

black-backed, downy, hairy, and

white-headed woodpeckers; red-

naped and Williamson’s

sapsuckers; and Northern flicker

(MIS)

These are management indicator species for dead and defective tree habitat. Snag habitat

does exist within the project area; however, snag removal is not part of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no effect on dead and defective tree habitat. It would not

affect the size or health of primary cavity excavator populations.

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)

The ruffed grouse is the management indicator species of deciduous and riparian habitats.

The proposed action would result in a temporary, small decrease in riparian habitat

followed by a long-term increase in riparian habitat. In the long-term, it would have a

positive effect on ruffed grouse habitat and ruffed grouse populations.

Mule Deer (MIS)

Mule deer are the management indicator species for winter range. The proposed

enhancements to aquatic habitat along the Chewuch River would not result in any reduction

in quantity or quality of winter range habitat. The project would have no effect on winter

range habitat. It would not affect the size or health of mule deer populations.

Landbirds Pertinent species of landbirds are addressed below in resource indicators.

Lynx (MIS and T)

Lynx habitat on the Okanogan National Forest has been mapped into 43 Lynx Analysis

Units (LAUs). The proposed action is not within an LAU. It is not in suitable lynx habitat.

The proposed action would have “no effect” on the lynx.

Lynx Critical Habitat The proposed action is not within a critical habitat unit for lynx. The proposed action

would have “no effect” on lynx critical habitat.

Northern Spotted Owl (T)

There is no suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat within ½ mile of the proposed action.

The proposed action would have no effect on mature or old growth habitats. It would have

“no effect” on the northern spotted owl.

Northern Spotted Owl Critical

Habitat

The proposed action is not within a critical habitat unit for the northern spotted owl. The

proposed action would have “no effect” on northern spotted owl critical habitat.

California bighorn sheep (S) The proposed action is not within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the California bighorn

sheep. The proposed action would have “no impact” on the California bighorn sheep.

Cascade red fox (S) The proposed action would have no effect on Cascade red fox habitat. It would have “no

impact” on the Cascade red fox.

Common Loon (S) The proposed action is not within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the common loon. The

proposed action would have “no impact” on the common loon.

Fisher (S) The proposed action would have no effect on fisher habitat. It would have “no impact” on

the fisher.

Gray Flycatcher (S) The proposed action is not within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the gray flycatcher.

The proposed action would have “no impact” on the gray flycatcher.

Great Gray Owl (S) The proposed action would have no effect on great gray owl habitat. It would have “no

impact” on the great gray owl.

Lewis’ Woodpecker (S) The proposed action would have no effect on Lewis’ woodpecker habitat. It would have

“no impact” on the Lewis’ woodpecker.


Little brown myotis (S) The proposed action would have no effect on bat habitat. It would have “no impact” on the

Little brown myotis.

Mountain Goat (S) The proposed action is not within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the mountain goat. The

proposed action would have “no impact” on the mountain goat.

Northern goshawk (S) The proposed action would have no effect on northern goshawk habitat. It would have “no

impact” on the northern goshawk.

Peregrine Falcon (S) The proposed action would have no effect on peregrine falcon habitat. It would have “no

impact” on the peregrine falcon.

Sandhill Crane (S) The proposed action is not within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the sandhill crane. The

proposed action would have “no impact” on the sandhill crane.

Sharp-tailed Grouse (S) The proposed action is not within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the sharp-tailed grouse.

The proposed action would have “no impact” on the sharp-tailed grouse.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (S) The proposed action would have no effect on bat habitat. It would have “no impact” on the

Townsend’s big-eared bat.

Western Gray Squirrel (S) The proposed action would have no effect on western gray squirrel habitat. It would have

“no impact” on the western gray squirrel.

White-headed Woodpecker (S) The proposed action would have no effect on snag habitat. It would have “no impact” on

the white-headed woodpecker.

Wolverine (S) The proposed action would have no effect on wolverine habitat. It would have “no impact”

on the wolverine.

Invertebrate Species (S)

Due to the slight increase in riparian habitat the proposed action would have a slightly

beneficial effect on butterfly and dragonfly habitats. It would have a “beneficial impact”

on listed invertebrate species.


Resource indicators and the measures used for assessing project effects to wildlife are described below.

Reference information is contained in the full specialist report in the analysis file.


Resource

Element Resource Indicator Measure

Used to address:

P/N, or key issue?

Source

(LRMP S/G; law or policy,

BMPs, etc.)?

Wildlife

(Harlequin Duck)

Disturbance during

critical periods.

Yes/No & if yes, to

what degree No

Okanogan NF LRMP S&G

6-8 and 6-19.

Active Raptor Nests

(Bald Eagle and

Osprey)

Disturbance during the

nesting season.

Yes/No & if yes, to

what degree No


6-10.

Grizzly bear and

gray wolf

Disturbance to

federally listed species.

Yes/No & if yes, to

what degree No


6-17 and FSM 2672.4.

Unique nesting

habitat

Loss of large diameter

cottonwood and cedar trees.

Number of large

diameter

cottonwood or cedar trees felled.

Yes Executive Order 13186

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Outstandingly

remarkable wildlife

value

Is the value for

wildlife diminished

(Yes/No)

Yes Okanogan NF LRMP S&G 9-3.


Methodology

Resource Indicator: Disturbance to wildlife during critical periods

The harlequin duck is a R6 Sensitive species that is known to nest along the Chewuch River. The female is

extremely sensitive and can be very intolerant to disturbance while incubating. The basis of effects analysis

would be the seasonal timing of the implementation (disturbance) of this project and whether it overlaps with

the timing of critical nesting period of the harlequin duck. The nesting season of the harlequin duck would

be determined by a scientific literature review and local observations of the species on the Chewuch River.

Resource Indicator: Disturbance to active raptor nests during the nesting season

The riverine habitat in the project area provides suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles and ospreys. The

basis of effects analysis would be whether active raptor nests are present and, if so, whether project

implementation would take place during the nesting season and in proximity to the nest. The project area

would be surveyed annually for active nests and scientific literature would be reviewed to determine the

nesting season dates.

Resource Indicator: Disturbance to grizzly bear and gray wolf

The project area provides habitat for the federally listed grizzly bear and gray wolf. The proposed

construction activity would include the use of heavy machinery and the increase in noise and human use

would likely disturb any grizzly bears or gray wolves at the site, resulting in a temporary negative effect.

The basis of effects analysis would be the season and length of the disturbance (project implementation),

and whether adjacent undisturbed areas are available.

Resource Indicator: Loss of unique nesting habitat-large cottonwood and cedar trees

Black cottonwood and western red cedar are 2 species of trees that are relatively rare on the Methow Valley

Ranger District in that their occurrence is limited to riparian areas. Construction activities associated with

the proposed action would require the felling of some trees at the project sites and access trails to the project

sites. The method of analysis for this indicator would be the number of large diameter cottonwood and

cedar trees, >16”, that are proposed to be felled during project implementation. This number would be

based on field inspections of each of the individual restoration sites and associated access trails.

Resource Indicator: Wild and scenic river eligibility


River to be eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation partly due to wildlife values. The method of

analysis would be any direct and adverse effect that would diminish the value of the area for wildlife. The

basis for direct and adverse effects would be tied to the previous 4 wildlife resource indicators and

professional judgement.


The Chewuch River is a major riparian corridor that provides habitat components not found in the

surrounding matrix of mixed conifer forests. The river itself is large enough to provide habitat for aquatic

wildlife species such as beaver, muskrat, waterfowl, and amphibians. The Chewuch River also supports

populations of several fish species therefore providing a food source for fish-eating wildlife like blue

herons, ospreys, and garter snakes. The relatively flat terrain adjacent to the river allows for the growth of

large diameter trees of a variety of species, including those that require a riparian environment, like black


cottonwood and western red cedar. These large diameter trees provide a variety of foraging and nesting

structures for a variety of bird and mammal species.


River, from the Thirtymile Trailhead to the Forest Boundary, is within an eligible river segment for potential

scenic classification under the Wild and Scenic River Act based partly on its outstandingly remarkable value

for wildlife.

The entire Chewuch River watershed is part of the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone and the

riparian habitat it supports could be important spring and fall habitat for grizzly bears. The Chewuch River

is in the part of Washington where the gray wolf is federally listed as an endangered species. There are no

known wolf den sites in the Chewuch River area, but it is likely that a small number of wolves currently

inhabit the area, at least seasonally or intermittently.




Measure


Existing

Condition

(Alternative 1)

Wildlife

(Harlequin Duck)

Disturbance during critical

periods. Yes/No & if yes, to what degree

No.

Disturbance

limited to

recreational

users.

Active Raptor Nests

(Bald Eagle and Osprey)


nesting season. Yes/No & if yes, to what degree

No.

Disturbance

limited to

recreational users.

Grizzly bear and gray

wolf

Disturbance to federally

listed species. Yes/No & if yes, to what degree

No.

Disturbance

limited to

recreational users.

Unique nesting habitat



Number of large diameter

cottonwood or cedar trees removed.

0

No trees removed

for restoration

project.


Eligibility

Outstandingly remarkable

wildlife value

Any direct and adverse effect that

would diminish the value for wildlife

No direct and adverse effects.

Outstandingly

Remarkable


The Chewuch River riparian area provides nesting and birthing habitat for a number of species including

amphibians, spotted sandpipers, some waterfowl species, and mule and white-tailed deer. The harlequin

duck is a R6 Sensitive species that is known to nest along the Chewuch River. The female is extremely

sensitive and can be very intolerant to disturbance while incubating (ISSSP 2009). Incubation of eggs

usually begins in mid to late May and eggs hatch in 28-30 days (ISSSP 2009). The newborn ducklings are

precocial and can leave the nest soon after hatching to join their mother on the water (ISSSP 2009). The

mother and brood can be on the breeding areas into September (ISSSP 2009). Project construction

activities during the incubation period could result in the abandonment and failure of nests. Harlequin

ducks have been documented on the Chewuch River from the junction with the Methow River to up above


Camp Four, which includes the proposed action area. Though they are known to nest on the Chewuch

River, there are no mapped nesting sites. The stretch of Chewuch River in the proposed action area was

surveyed for harlequin ducks in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2016 with negative results for nesting.


The riverine habitat in the project area provides suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles and ospreys. There

are no known active nest sites in or adjacent to the project area (Chewuch R.M. 15.5 - 20). There are no

records of bald eagles nesting or roosting on the Chewuch River; the nearest known nest site is 16 miles

south near the town of Winthrop. There is one record of an osprey nest on the Chewuch River near R.M.

14. The nest tree was overhanging the river and fell over and was swept away several years ago. There are

no records of ospreys building any new nests in the project area since then. Project construction activities

during the incubation period could result in the abandonment and failure of nests.


The project area provides habitat for the federally listed grizzly bear and gray wolf. The Chewuch River

Project area may be inhabited by grizzly bears at certain times of the year. The project area is dry forest and

forested riparian habitat type and could be important spring and fall habitat for grizzly bears. The project

area is not adjacent to any areas that are lush with berry shrubs, but there are scattered service berry,

elderberry, thimbleberry, chokecherry and other shrubs in the general area. The Chewuch River Project area

may be inhabited by wolves during spring, summer, and fall when mule deer are present in the area. If

moose winter in the area, it is possible that wolves would also. The proposed construction activity would

include the use of heavy machinery and the increase in noise and human use would likely disturb ungulates

and other wildlife that were utilizing the area. If wolves or bears were hunting or foraging in the area, this

activity would likely disturb them.


Black cottonwood and western red cedar are 2 species of trees that are relatively rare on the Methow Valley

Ranger District in that their occurrence is limited to riparian areas. Large diameter individuals provide a

unique habitat for wildlife in that these 2 species are prone to large trunk cavities, which commonly result

from heart rot in stands nearing maturity (Parks et al. 1997). The rotten trunks of these 2 species provide an

opportunity for the excavation of large cavities and hollow trees/logs, an important wildlife habitat

component that is otherwise scarce. There are several small stands of large diameter black cottonwood

trees within the project area and a few individual cedar trees and small clumps of cedar trees.



River, from the Thirtymile Trailhead to the Forest Boundary, is within an eligible river segment for potential

scenic classification under the Wild and Scenic River Act. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the

Chewuch River, identified in the Okanogan Forest Plan, are scenic, wildlife, fish, and recreation. Section 7

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states, in part, that projects that have a “direct and adverse effect on the

values for which” the river was found eligible shall not be authorized.



There would be no additional disturbance to riparian wildlife during critical periods. There would be no

additional disturbance to active raptor nests during the nesting periods. There would be no additional


disturbance to grizzly bears or gray wolves utilizing the area. Disturbance would be limited to recreational

users. There would be no loss of large diameter cottonwood or cedar trees. All the existing ones would

remain standing until natural conditions caused them to fall.





Measure

(Quantify if possible) Alternative 2

Wildlife

(Harlequin Duck)

Disturbance during

critical periods. Yes/No & if yes, to what degree

No.

Disturbance would occur

outside of critical periods.

Active Raptor Nests

(Bald Eagle and

Osprey)


nesting season. Yes/No & if yes, to what degree

No.


outside of nesting season.

Grizzly bear and gray

wolf

Disturbance to federally

listed species. Yes/No & if yes, to what degree.

Yes.

Disturbance limited to

short duration in middle of summer.

Unique nesting habitat



Number of large diameter cottonwood

or cedar trees removed.

No large diameter

cottonwood to be

removed, no large

diameter cedar to be removed.


Eligibility

Outstandingly

remarkable wildlife

value

Any direct and adverse effect that

would diminish the value for wildlife

Direct and adverse

effects limited in time

and space. Outstandingly

remarkable value for

wildlife would not be diminished


Harlequin ducks were observed on the Chewuch River within the project area during surveys in June 2016

and in previous years’ surveys. Potential impacts of the proposed action to harlequin ducks would be

disturbance or destruction of active nest sites during project implementation. The proposed action would be

implemented during the month of July, which is after harlequin duck eggs have hatched and ducklings are

on the water. With this timing of implementation, the proposed action would have “no impact” on harlequin

ducks. In the long term, the improvement and expansion of riparian habitat resulting from the project

would be beneficial for the species.


No raptor nests were observed within ½ mile of the project area during surveys in June thru September

2016. It is possible that a new nest(s) would be constructed and used in spring and summer 2017. If design

feature #8 is implemented, and nest surveys are conducted again in spring 2017, and no active nests are

found, the proposed action would have no impact on bald eagles and no effect on ospreys.

If a new active raptor nest is discovered in spring 2017 (or following years if implementation is delayed)

then implementation within 450 meters of the nest would have to be delayed until after August 15 (Steidl

and Anthony 2000).



The construction activity that would occur during implementation would likely disturb any grizzly bears or

gray wolves that were utilizing the area. Bears and wolves would be able to use the area without human

disturbance from construction at night. Wildlife disturbed by construction activity would be able to move to

adjacent undisturbed areas. This temporary human disturbance of a forested riparian site would occur

outside the denning period for these large predators, and would not result in any reductions to grizzly bears

or any of their forage items, nor to gray wolves or any of their prey. Alternative 2 would have a slight

adverse disturbance effect on grizzly bear and gray wolf. With the limited time and spatial scale of this

project the potential for disturbance would be minimal. The proposed action “may effect, but would not

likely adversely affect” the grizzly bear and gray wolf.


Alternative 2 would not result in the loss of any large diameter, > 16”, cottonwood or cedar trees.

Alternative 2 would have no effect on unique nesting habitat.


Alternative 2 would not diminish the outstandingly remarkable wildlife values of the Chewuch River. The

only direct and adverse effect would be from the potential for slight temporary disturbance to grizzly bears

and gray wolves. In the long term, the improvement and expansion of riparian habitat resulting from the

project would be beneficial for harlequin ducks as well as many of the other aquatic and riparian dependent

species that add to the river’s value for wildlife.



The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects of disturbance to wildlife during critical periods

are the same as the project area because the effect of disturbance to harlequin duck nest sites is limited to

the immediate vicinity of the nest site. The temporal boundaries are one year because disturbance to a

nesting site in one year would not likely affect the use of the site in the following years.

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects of disturbance to active raptor nest sites during

the nesting season are the project area plus a 450 meter buffer because the effect of disturbance to bald

eagle nest sites is limited to within 450 meters of the nest site (Steidl and Anthony 2000). The temporal

boundaries are one year because disturbance to a nesting site in one year would not likely affect the use of

the site in the following years.

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects of disturbance to grizzly bears and gray wolves

are the Lower Chewuch Bear Management Unit (BMU) because effects to grizzly bears are analyzed at the

BMU scale (Puchlerz and Servheen 1998). The temporal boundaries are one year because temporary

disturbance to individuals at a site in one year would not likely affect the use of the site in the following years.

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects of removal of unique nesting habitat are the

same as the project area because the effects of removal of habitat components is limited to the immediate

vicinity. The temporal boundaries are 80 years because that is the approximate amount of time it takes to

grow a new large diameter cottonwood or cedar tree.



Since Alternative 2 had no direct or indirect effects to harlequin ducks and bald eagles and ospreys there

would be no cumulative effects.


Figure 55: Disturbance to Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf Cumulative Effects

Project

Overlap In

Time

Space

Measurable

Cumulative

Effect?

Extent,

Detectable?

Forest Service Vegetation

Treatment Activities (Pre-

commercial treatments and

fuel reduction treatments

from the Flatmoon and

Buck projects.)

Yes Yes No

There may be an overlap in timing of these projects with

Chewuch Restoration Project. All recent past and future

projects have been and would be designed to minimize

disturbance to grizzly bear and gray wolf. The cumulative

effect of disturbance to grizzly bear and gray wolf would be

minor and within the interim direction for management

within the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.

Ongoing Recreation

Activities

Yes Yes No

There may be an overlap in timing of these projects with

Chewuch Restoration Project. All recent past and future

projects have been and would be designed to minimize

disturbance to grizzly bear and gray wolf. The cumulative

effect of disturbance to grizzly bear and gray wolf would be

minor and within the interim direction for management

within the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.

Resource Indicator: Loss of Unique Nesting Habitat

Since Alternative 2 had no direct or indirect effects to unique nesting habitat there would be no cumulative

effects.


Alternative 2 would be compliant with the Okanogan Forest Plan management indicator species (MIS)

direction because it has no effect on any of the MIS and therefore does not reduce population viability for

any of them. Alternative 2 would be compliant with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order

13186 direction because it has no effect on landbirds. Alternative 2 would be compliant with FSM 2670

and the Endangered Species Act direction because it either has no effect on threatened and endangered

species (lynx and northern spotted owl), or it has a may affect, not likely to adversely affect (grizzly bear

and gray wolf) and that determination has been consulted on and concurred with by the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service. Alternative 2 would be compliant with FSM 2670 direction for sensitive species because

it has no impact on any of the sensitive species listed for Region 6. Alternative 2 would not degrade the

wildlife outstandingly remarkable value for making the Chewuch River eligible as a Wild and Scenic River.


Degree to Which the Alternatives Address the Issues

Figure 56: Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the key issues

Issue Indicator/Measure Alt 1 Alt 2

Disturbance from access and

construction during critical

periods, including nesting

season, may impact nesting

birds or federally listed wildlife species.

Disturbance during critical

periods; Disturbance

during nesting season;

Disturbance to federally listed species.

No disturbance from

river restoration project.


outside of critical nesting

period. Disturbance to

federally listed species would

be limited to short duration during the middle of summer.

Removal of large diameter

cedar and cottonwood during

access and construction would impact unique riparian habitat.

Number of large diameter

cedar or cottonwood trees

felled.

0 0

3.5.5 Summary

Alternative 1 would have no effect to any wildlife species or habitats in the project area. Alternative 2 has

the potential to disturb and negatively impact harlequin duck nest sites but the timing of implementation

removes this potential and results in no impact. Alternative 2 has the potential to disturb and negatively

impact bald eagle and osprey nests, but annual surveys to ensure there are no active nests prior to

implementation removes this potential and results in no impact. Alternative 2 would result in a slight

disturbance to grizzly bears and gray wolves during project implementation that results in a “may affect,

not likely to adversely affect” determination for those two species. Alternative 2 has the potential to

remove unique nesting habitat in the form of large diameter cottonwood and cedar trees. If implemented,

it would result in the loss of no large diameter cottonwood and cedar trees, resulting in no effect to unique

nesting habitat in the project area. Alternative 2 would not diminish the project area’s “outstandingly

remarkable wildlife value” referred to in the Wild and Scenic River Act.

3.6 Soil Resources The proposed in-stream wood placement and riparian plantings would have an adverse, short-term minor

impact to the soil resource. There would be localized soil disturbance to tie the logs into the stream bank

(Figure 57) and walking the equipment to the site. Project BMPs would ensure that there is limited impact to

existing soil conditions, and riparian plantings would help stabilize and enhance the soil long-term.


Figure 57: Example of previous in-stream wood placement along the Chewuch River. The bare soil was seeded and the

riparian planting were on the other side of the mesh fencing. Rock armoring along the stream bank would help reduce

erosion.

Figure 58. Example of riparian planting that would be done with this project. This adds soil stability, biodiversity, and

long-term soil health and productivity.


3.7 Cultural Resources The following section summarizes the existing condition of cultural resources in the Chewuch River Habitat

Restoration project area between River Miles 15.5 - 20, along with the direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects of the proposed action alternatives as analyzed in the Cultural Resources Specialist Report

(R2014060804005). Reference information is contained in the cultural resource report in the analysis file.

Tribal Consultation

Many laws, regulations, and directives instruct the Forest Service to consult with American Indian tribes, the

State, and other interested parties on the cultural resource management process. Consultation with tribes on

the Chewuch River Restoration project proposed actions has been conducted in accordance with NHPA,

NEPA, and Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”.

Government-to-Government consultation letters were sent to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville

Reservation and the Yakama Nation on September 2, 2016. No comments or concerns have been received to

date from either party except as related to the boundary of the Area of Potential Effects (APE).

Documentation of compliance with the NHPA was prepared in accordance with the 1997 Programmatic

Agreement (PA). Consultation with the Washington SHPO was completed on October 3, 2016.

3.7.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cultural resources are fragile, non-renewable resources that chronicle the history of people traversing and

utilizing the natural landscape. Cultural resource identification efforts in the Chewuch River planning area

focused on three primary types of resources: prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites,

and Traditional Cultural Properties, which are valued places to contemporary Indian and non-Indian

communities. Cultural resource identification efforts have included pedestrian field surveys, literature

reviews, GIS analysis, and consultation with the Yakama Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Colville

Indian Reservation that are historically associated with the area.

The Okanogan Forest Plan defines a cultural resource site as a locus of purposeful and interpretable human

activity containing physical manifestations of that activity (e.g. one or more features with or without

artifacts; one or more formal tools found in association with other cultural materials; diverse cultural

materials in densities beyond the level of one or a few lost artifacts; or physical manifestations of human

activity that in the professional opinion of an archaeologist are indicative of purposeful human activity).

These resources are typically at least 50 years old and are considered valuable if they have yielded or could

yield scientific or scholarly information important in prehistory or history.

In order to meet the requirements set forth in Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and the Forest’s 1997

Programmatic Agreement with SHPO, an intensive cultural resource inventory of the project area of

potential effect (APE) began in 2016. A 100% on-the-ground survey of affected areas was completed since

the entire project area was determined to be within high site location probability (generally terrain less than

15% slopes within 500’ of water or major ridge systems). This survey led to the discovery and recordation

of one cultural resource site, a bridge abutment, which was determined “Not Eligible” since the site lacks

physical and functional integrity and thorough documentation has exhausted its research potential. SHPO

concurred with that determination on October 3, 2016. This project would have no direct, indirect, or

cumulative effect on known cultural resources. Cultural resources found during implementation would be

protected by Design Criteria and Mitigation Measure 12: “if avoidance were not possible, mitigation would

be developed”.


3.8. Other Environmental Consequences and Required Disclosures This section addresses those effects for which disclosure is required by NEPA regulations, Forest Service

policy or regulation, Executive Order, or other laws and direction covering environmental analysis and

documentation. In some cases, the information found here is also located elsewhere in the document.

3.8.1 Conflicts with other Plans, Policies, or Other Jurisdictions

This project would not conflict with any plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including Tribes and

neighboring public and private landowners. This project would not conflict with other policies, regulations,

or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act,

Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and Clean Air Act. Other potential

conflicts with plans, policies, or other jurisdictions are discussed below.

3.8.2 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs federal agencies to focus attention on the human health

and environmental condition in minority and low-income communities. The purpose of the Executive

Order is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

The project would not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on

minority and low-income populations.

3.8.3 Treaty Resources and Reserved Indian Rights

No impacts on American Indian social, economic, or subsistence rights are anticipated. No impacts are

anticipated related to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Tribal contacts regarding this Proposed

Action are described on page 9.

3.8.4 Wetlands and Floodplains

Project design measures to protect streams, wetlands, floodplain, and water quality were built into

treatment activities. Therefore, there may be some short-term effects during the 1-month construction

season, but no-long-term effect on wetlands and floodplains.

3.8.5 Unique Characteristics of the Area

There are no parklands, farmlands, rangelands, wildernesses, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), unroaded

areas, research natural areas, or ecologically critical areas within the project area. Therefore, none of these

features would be affected by the proposed action. Maps and descriptions the project location are on pages

1 - 3, 13 – 15, and elsewhere in the document.

The project area includes a section of the Chewuch River that is within an eligible river segment for

potential scenic classification under the Wild and Scenic River Act. The project would protect and

maintain the outstandingly remarkable values that make this river segment eligible for Scenic designation.

3.8.6 Air Quality

Adding large wood to the Chewuch River would not affect air quality. Therefore, this project would

comply with the Clean Air Act. No on-site burning of debris is proposed in this project.


3.8.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

There are no Irreversible or Irretrievable commitments of resources anticipated as part of implementing the

proposed action.

3.8.8 Agencies, Tribes, and other Entities Consulted

As described on pages 9 & 10, the Forest Service and BPA invited Federal, State, County and Ttribal

entities to engage in informal or formal comment, discussion, and/or consultation on this Environmental

Assessment. In compliance with 36 CFR 800.3(f), initiation of the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 process included notification to two federally-recognized tribes, including the Confederated

Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation and the Yakama Nation.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service was

completed using the U.S. Forest Service, U.S Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs’

Biological Assessment for USDA Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Region), USDI Bureau of Land

Management (Oregon State Office) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The project meets the design criteria

for the above Biological Assessment and therefore is consistent and covered under the Programmatic

Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington and portions of

California, Idaho and Nevada (USDI-FWS – 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090) (USDC-NOAA NWP-2013-

9664).


Appendix A: References (RTT), R.T.T. 2013. A biological strategy to protect and restore salmonid habitat in the Upper Columbia Region.

Report to the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board From The Upper Columbia Regional Technical

Team. 52 pages plus appendices p.

Ahlenslager, K.; Cabral, A. 2007. Final Report for the 2007 Revisit of 17 Sites of Two ISSSSP First

Priority Species: Cypripedium parviflorum and Sanicula marilandica. . In: USDA, C.N.F., ed.

Colville National Forest. USDA. November 15, 2007: USDA.

Ames, K.M.; Dumond, D.E.; Galm, J.R. [and others]. 1998. Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. In

Walker, D.E.(ed), Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 12. Washington DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press. 103-119.

Baigun, C.R.; Sedell, J.; Reeves, G. 2000. Influence of Water Temperature in Use of Deep Pools by

Summer Steelhead in Steamboat Creek, Oregon (USA). Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 15(2): 269-

279.

Beechie, T.; Beamer, E.; Wasserman, L. 1994. Estimating coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt

production losses in a large river basin and implications for restoration. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management. 14: 797-811.

Benda, L.E.; Miller, D.; Bigelow, P.; Andras, K. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire erosion on channel

environments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management, Boise River, Idaho. Journal of

Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 105–119.

Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E.; Bryant, M.D. [and others]. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the

Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. University of Washington, Seattle: 143-190 p.

Bisson, P.A.; Nielsen, J.L.; Palmason, R.A.; Grove, L.E. 1982. A system of naming habitat types in small

streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflow. . Acquisition and

utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. American Fisheries Society, Western Division,

Bethesda, Maryland. Bethesda, Maryland: Armantrout editor. Pages 62-73 in N. B. Armantrout,

editor p.

Bisson, P.A.; Sedell, J.R. 1984. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut vs oldgrowth forests of

western Washington in W.R. Meehan, T.R. Merrell Jr., and T.A. Hanley led Fish and wildlife

relationships in old-growth forests, proceedings of a symposium held April 1982, Juneau, AK.

American Inst. Fish Res Bio. 121-129.

Bjornn, T.C.; Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams in influences of forest and

rangeland management on salmonoid fishes and their habitats. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries

Special Publication. 83-138 p.

Campbell, S.K. 1989. Post-Columbian Culture History in the Northern Columbia Plateau AD 1500-1900.

University of Washington, Seattle.

Campbell, S.K.; University of Washington. Office of Public Archaeology.; United States. Army.

Corps of Engineers. Seattle District. 1985. Summary of results, Chief Joseph Dam Cultural

Resources Project, Washington. Seattle, Wash.?: Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for

Environmental Studies, University of Washington. xxviii, 599 p. p.


Chatters, J.C. 1986. The Wells Reservoir Project. Summary of Findings. In: Survey, C.W.A., ed.

Ellensburg, WA: Central Washington University.

Elliott, S.T. 1986. Reduction of a Dolly Varden population and macrobenthos after removing logging

debris. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 392-400 p.

Everest, F.H.; Chapman, D.W. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile chinook salmon

and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. J Fish Res Board Can. 29: 91-100.

Fausch, K.D.; Northcote, T.G. 1992. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British

Columbia stream. Canadian Journal Fish Aquat Science. 49: 682-693.

Fox, M.; Bolton, S. 2007. A regional and geomorphic reference for quantities and volumes of instream

wood in unmanaged forested basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management. 27: 432-359.

Galm, J.R.; Masten, R.A. 1985. Avey's Orchard: Archaeological Investigation of a Late Prehistoric

Columbia River Community. Reports in Archaeology and History: Eastern Washington University.

Hawkins, T.S.; Baskin, J.M.; Baskin, C.C. 2007. Seed morphology, germination phenology, and capacity

to form a seed bank in six herbaceous layer apiaceae species of the eastern deciduous forest. 8-14 p.

Inter-Fluve. 2014. draft Chewuch River Mile 15.5 - 17 Fish Habitat Conceptual Design Report. 36 p.

Inter-Fluve. 2016. draft Chewuch River Mile 17 - 20 Conceptual Design Report. 42 p.

Jonason, C. 2012. Chewuch River Mile 9.56 River Use Assessments. Wave Trek Rescue. 19 p.

Kolb, A.; Lindhorst, S. December 2005. Forest fragmentation and plant reproductive success: a case study

in four perennial herbs. Plant Ecology (2006) 185:209-220. Plant Ecology (2006). 185:209-220 p.

MacDonald, L.H.; Smart, A.W.; Wissmar, R.W. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of

forestry activities ons treams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.

Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats.

Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 1-16 p.

MIG. 2014. Chewuch River Recreation and Large Wood Assessment. The on-river assessment conducted

for the project is designed to charcterize recreation use and existing large wood or other river features for

the Chewuch River R.M. 0 - 21. Submitted to Yakama Nation Fisheries

Murphy, M.L.; Heifetz, J.; Johnson, S.W. [and others]. 1986. Effects of clear-cut logging on with and

without buffer strips on juvenile salmonoids habitat in Alaska streams. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 43: 1520-1533.

PACFISH. 1995. Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-

producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California.

USDA Forest Service; U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Decision

Notice/Decision Record. Available at the Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop WA. USDA

Forest Service.


Parks, C.; Bull, E.; Torgersen, T. 1997. Field guide for the identification of snags and logs in the Interior

Columbia River Baqsin. General Technical Report. Portland, OR: USDA-FS. 40 p.

Puchlerz, T.; Servheen, C. 1998. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee access management task force

report. Denver, CO. 6 p.

Sedell, J.R.; Swanson, F.J.; Meehan, W.R. [and others]. 1984. Ecological characteristics of streams in

old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. Eds Amer Inst Fisheries Res Biol. 9-16 p.

Service, N.M.F. 2000. Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters Containing Salmonids Listed Under the

Endangered Species Act.

Shull, G.; Butler, C. 2014. Chewuch river large wood, pool, and off-channel habitat existing versus desired

conditions. 10 p.

Steidl, R.; Anthony, R. 2000. Experimental effects of human activity on breeding bald eagles. 258-268 p.

Teit, J.A. 1928. The Middle Columbia Salish. Publications in Anthropology University of Washington

Seattle. 2(4 SRC - GoogleScholar): 83-128.

UCSRB. 2007. Upper Columbia Salmon Steelhead Recovery Plan.

USDA; USDC; USDI. 2004. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal

Actions affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area.

USDA-FS. 1989a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan,

Okanogan National Forest. 3 vols. Portland, Or.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region.

USDA-FS. 1989b. Record of Decision for the Okanogan National Forest, Land and Resource Management

Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Okanogan National Forest and portions of the

Colville, Mount Baker, and Wenatchee National Forests : Okanogan, Skagit, Whatcom, Chelan,

and Ferry Counties, Washington State. Portland, Or.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Region. 36 p. p.

USDA-FS. 1994a. Chewuch River Watershed Analysis. Winthrop, WA:

USDA-FS. 1994b. Section 7 Fish Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper Columbia River Basin.

USDA-FS. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook.

USDA-FS. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest.

USDA-FS. 2002. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Weed Management and Prevention Strategy

and Best Management Practices. Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. 21 p.

USDA-FS. 2004. Technical report of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council: US

Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 38 p.


USDA-FS. 2008. Chewuch River Stream Survey Report. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan, Washington.

Okanogan, WA: USDA Forest Service.

USDA-FS. 2010. draft Lower Chewuch Watershed Action Plan.

USDA-FS. 2011. Status of Management Indicator Species on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National

Forests, April 2011. Unpublished paper. 78 p.

USDA-FS. 2012. Sediment Monitoring Report. USDA Forest Service, Methow Valley Ranger District.

Winthrop, WA.

USDA-FS. November 2005. Record of decision for the final environmental impact statement for the

pacific northwest region invasive plant program preventing and managing invasive plants. Portland,

OR: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FIES.htm

USDA-FS. October 2004. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management.

24 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/Invasive_Species.pdf

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 1994. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of

Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl. 2 vols. Portland, Or.: Interagency SEIS Team.

USDA-FS, U.-B. 2009. (ISSSSP) Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-birds.shtml. (July 9, 2014).

Walters, L.V.W. 1938. Social Structure. In The Sinkaietk or Southern Okanagon of

Washington. LeslieSpier, (ed). Menasha, WI: George Banta Publishing Company. 73-99.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FIES.htm

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/Invasive_Species.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-birds.shtml